Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[darkknight9]

Dear Mother Nature,

It is entirely too hot this week. The last few weeks were fine but would it kill you to dump a foot of snow centered on the Twin Cites area this week with applicable temperatures?

Much love, -dk9

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

[spoken like a Tennessee Williams character]
It’s hotter ‘a na French Quarter whore’s twat on the Fourth of July.

[darkknight9]

Rick Hunter voicing the character "The Dude" in the Postal series:
"It's hotter than the devils rectum in here! When did we move to hell?"

[Kazinski]

July 4th hot, who knew?

[darkknight9]

:p

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd much prefer a foot of rain on Quebec and Nova Scotia Provinces.
Along with a saner Canadian government, one which realizes that if you don't clean out the forests (and harvest the wood), it's gonna burn and create incredible amounts of cross-border pollution.

CO2 is one thing -- this is real "smog" and really bad for breathing and is getting really annoying. And how long does it take to PUT OUT these fires? If the Canadians can't do it, and Brandon isn't competent enough to get enough US help in to do it, let's call the UN. Maybe the Ugandans can dig fire lines....

But Lord, a foot or two of rain up there would be nice...

[santamonica811]

Well, I *knew* it had to be Biden's fault, somehow. Thanks for the clarification.

[Nige]

'one which realizes that if you don’t clean out the forests (and harvest the wood), it’s gonna burn'

How much forest are we talking about up there?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not much current information in a DDG search. Most of it is a month old.
One says about 20 million acres have burned.
Linked story has smaller numbers but more info.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/26/canada-wildfire-worst-season-quebec-ontario-smoke/

[Nige]

To be more specific – is it forestry that is actually managed? Forestry is managed because human activity has derailed various natural processes that keep the ecosystem turning. If it’s more or less pristine wilderness, certain types of managment might be unnecessary and probably counter-productive, and if the acreage is vast enough, impossible anyway.

[darkknight9]

I think there is no governmental oversight in the millions of acres of forest. One would think that the only maintenance being done would be locals or campers cutting down dead trees and/or gathering deadfall for firewood. Not exactly a thorough process given how freaking big the area of trees is.

[darkknight9]

"Canada's National Forestry Database (CNFD) reports total forestland area at 417.6 million ha (1,031.9 million acres), equivalent to 42% of the total land area."

That's a biggun.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And don't forget that Western Canada is prairie, just like the US.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Canadian Province of New Brunswick is between Quebec and Nova Scotia -- Quebec is roughly north of the left tip of Maine (and runs further west over NH/VT), New Brunswick is north of Maine, with Nova Scotia being further east with lots of ocean frontage.

It's Quebec and Nova Scotia that have the fires -- New Brunswick doesn't see; https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/public_alerts/forest_fire_watch.html Yes, New Brunswick has had 186 fires this year to date, but they average 182 to date, so its only 4 more than normal.

So why isn't New Brunswick having lots of uncontrollable fires when the two provinces on each side *are*? It's roughly the same environment -- Quebec is higher and further from the ocean, but it's roughly lots of forests.

Note also that the Quebec (Province, not City) fires aren't extending south into upstate NH/VT/NY. Same environment.

I argue that New Brunswick does a better job managing its forests, and I suspect that includes building/permitting fire roads to be built through the wilderness so that crews and equipment can get to the fire. (Note the "access to the fire" line on the NB fire page.)

Rush Limbaugh made the same point about California when it was burning 20 years ago -- why did all the fires stop at the US/Mexican border? Mexico lets people go in and cart off the dead trees for firewood, and apparently the US Forest Service doesn't.

If New Brunswick was burning too, I'd say "Act of God" -- but it isn't.
So there's some other variable here.

[Nige]

I always go to Rush Limbaugh for forest management insights.

[Frank Drackman]

Rush Limbo made more $$$ in one week than you (or me) make in a lifetime. And More sense in one minute than you make in a lifetime.

[Nige]

Rich grifters really appeal to edgebot

[StellaLink_the dog]

Doubt he made more sense but little doubt that he did more drugs. Probably did more drugs than Hunter Biden.

[Nige]

To put it differently again - the problem with fire suppression management in certain types of forests is that fires are part of their natural cycle and if you suppress fires long enough you end up with truly enormous and destructive fires. That's not what's happening here. This is something else.

[darkknight9]

I agree, my thought is that even if they wanted to micromanage forested areas there isn't enough $$ or people to do it yearly.

[Nige]

Well, quite. 'Forest management' is a misnomer in relation to these fires.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, I think Irving could afford it — and they may be part of this, their forest management saving NB.

Irving is a *big* company into forest products and petroleum — they expanded into the US (Mainway, Blue Canoe gasoline stations) because the Canadians wouldn’t let them own any more stuff in Canada.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Group_of_Companies

[Mr. Bumble]

From the horses mouth:
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/forests/sustainable-forest-management/13183

[Nige]

Yeah 'forest management' in Canada is usually in reference to resource extraction.

[darkknight9]

Indeed. It appears to be rules laying out where folks can and cant harvest the stuff. No parkland, no designated bird or martin zones, etc.

As far as fires: "Fire, the primary change agent in the boreal zone, is as crucial to forest renewal as the sun and rain."

[Kazinski]

Fire is part of the ecosystem, and trees like lodge pole pine and Jack pine actually need fire to release their seeds.

[darkknight9]

Give them all the rains. Except Nova Scotia. Either give them a lil less or stretch it out over a week or two. I don't want my youtube vanwives to wash away after doing all that work to the cabin.

[Commenter_XY]

Hot in the People's Republic of NJ as well. Unseasonably warm. My flowers love it, esp hydrangea.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why haven't you moved from New Jersey to a poorly educated, superstitious, economically inadequate, backward, bigoted, rural, conservative-controlled state that would be a better fit for you?

If you are younger than 18, please disregard this comment because children have diminished control over their circumstances.

[Frank Drackman]

OK "Coach", I might have to cut you some slack... As bad as you were, you didn't go this far.....
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/penn-state-professor-themis-matsoukas-dog-se_n_648b0a19e4b025003ee2ba95
is there something in the water in "Happy Valley"???

Frank

[Theendoftheleft]

Americans are considerably obese, which impacts their IQs. Do fatmericans therefore get off the hook somewhat for their diminished control too?

Is making everyone obese also a form of equity?

[Frank Drackman]

This American's same 140lbs as when I pitched in High School, maybe lost an inch (in height! height!) but that's due to the Planned Obsolescence Disc Desiccation J-hovah built in

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

Here in Heaven its been great. Mild days, cool nights, low humidity.

Today is the first sorta humid day.

[John F. Carr]

I often wish for a cold ray I could shoot up into the air to form a mass of precipitation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No you don't -- you'd get an instant microburst. They're as bad as a tornado and Massachusetts gets them. (They often are mistaken for a tornado.)

Think five miles of air falling out of the sky because (as a thunderstorm dies) there isn't enough heat to keep all that wet air aloft anymore.

[Frank Drackman]

There is this Invention called "Air Conditioning" which works pretty well.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trying to imagine what would happen if Klaatu returned and had Gort disable all air conditioning.

[Martinned]

There's been some argument on social media over the weekend about the extent to which the 303 Creative plaintiffs ran a fictitious case, and the extent to which that matters.

https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1675584226022899713

Views (presumably versions of "no and no") welcome.

[Josh R]

Adler is close, but not quite right. The fake case was used in a brief in support of a pre-enforcement challenge. The district court rejected the challenge while the Tenth Circuit accepted it without reference to the fake case. Thus, it is likely the fake case played no role in the decision, although if it were known to be fake by the lawyers, they are in deep do-do.

[not guilty]

The standing of this plaintiff to bring a pre-enforcement challenge is a weak point of the SCOTUS opinion. It looks like the majority merely deferred to the Tenth Circuit's standing analysis without conducting any inquiry of its own. (Slip op. 5.)

[David Nieporent]

Although the Colorado respondents did argue against standing at the cert petition stage, when it got to the merits Colorado didn't bother to contest standing. While standing cannot be waived as an argument, it's not surprising that the Court didn't spend a lot of time focusing on an uncontested issue. There were no novel legal arguments for/against standing; the issue was simply a factual one: whether 303 Creative had shown a credible threat of enforcement, as SBA List requires. The Tenth Circuit had found that there was, and nothing in the briefs called that factual finding into question.

Note further that despite the liberal commentariat's furious insistence that this is a "fake case" where the petitioner lacked standing, Sotomayor's dissent did not so much as mention standing. (Even if liberal pundits are throwing a tantrum about it, I don't think liberal judges are quite as eager to restrict pre-enforcement challenges to 1A infringements.)

[Sarcastr0]

Orin Kerr has some amazing examples of pretextual but seminal cases really making the case that this is normal stuff.

Dickerson v. US wasn't pretextual exactly, but the Miranda warnings actually had been given; the only reason they weren't in the record was the AUSA forgot at and the district judge wouldn't reopen the record.

And he just did a big thing on the Scopes monkey trial that was amazing.
https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1675559819116417024

[John F. Carr]

Because Musk wants to prevent data scraping I can no longer read Twitter. Those with unpaid accounts are rate limited to reading 600 tweets per day as of last report.

[Sarcastr0]

I've heard about that, but not had an issue on my unpaid account.

I guess that's a sign I have a healthy relationship with the boid.

[John F. Carr]

I have no Twitter account at all. I am a free rider. I do not offer my personal data and reading preferences to The Man. I do not sell my soul to Silicon Valley terms of service.

Now there is no more free ride.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you miss it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Twitter ride was never free. Elon Musk and his financial backers have lost tens of billions of dollars and seem destined to lose more.

That's a steep price to pay for imposing your preferred flavor of censorship, but impulsive, reckless, vainglorious, on-the-spectrum clingers have rights, too!

[Theendoftheleft]

'...imposing your preferred flavor of censorship...'.

Wow, you went full Orwell there. Do you even remember the last time you cared about truth?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some people consider Elon Musk an advocate for expression; they tend to be disaffected, obsolete culture war casualties who mistake right-wing censors for free speech champions.

Other people call Elon Musk the King of Censorship.

[Theendoftheleft]

They can call him that, but Musk greatly expanded what people could say and post on Twitter compared to the status quo ante. You're just mad that you can't silence beliefs and thoughts with which you disagree, and so control messaging. How sad too bad, totalitarian freak.

So too, Chomsky et al can call themselves 'libertarian' socialists and 'anarcho'-syndicalists, but time and again they've proven that they're really just authoritarian fuckwits who support systems of power to control people's speech and conduct too.

[Krayt]

I don't Twitter either. I went to load the post and it said something went wrong. From the sound of things, it may not be technical.

[Kazinski]

Rather than waste your time reading 600 tweets on Twitter you can waste your time reading 600 posts on an open thread here.

[bernard11]

Do you typically read 600 tweets a day?

Do a lot of people do that?

[jb]

I hardly read any Tweets, and do not have an account. Which now means I can't read any Tweets. (i.e, the need for an account is a bigger problem than the rate limit itself)

[Nige]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Elon Musk has no way of knowing how many tweets anybody actually reads on Twitter.

[EscherEnigma]

Because Musk wants to prevent data scraping [...]

You believed that load of horse-shit?

I won't claim I know why they instituted the rate-caps. But the data-scraping claim is ridiculous.

[Life of Brian]

Because?

[Sarcastr0]

Hasn't been a problem in the past. Musk claims the change is AI.

The current big deep language models are trained based on Internet-derived static datasets, not constant scraping of the Internet. Much easier to curate.

That could change, or maybe it's smaller-scale AI shops doing it the hard way for reasons unknowable, but without more the bare claim that AI is the cause of a bunch of new data-scraping is dubious.

[Life of Brian]

Without more what? What would satisfy you?

[Sarcastr0]

Direct evidence would be good. An expert not beholden to him. A paper.

Or, you know, any evidence other than Musk's bare word.

[Life of Brian]

An expert not beholden to him. A paper.

Atta boy — get that squishy qualifier in there to give yourself wiggle room to disqualify any rock I might bring you. And you’re demanding a paper about something that happened a few days ago? Serious LOL.

Happy 4th, Nonfalsifiabo.

[Sarcastr0]

You asked, I answered. Your disqualifications of the pretty ordinary things I'd find better than Musk's bare word seems pretty overdetermined to me.

[Life of Brian]

Your disqualifications of the pretty ordinary things I’d find better than Musk’s bare word

Vomitous projection. As I said and you didn't deny, you're the one leaving yourself the wiggle room to disqualify any sources that facially meet your criteria but trouble your priors, and asking for others you know good and well can't exist yet. No rocks for you!

[Sarcastr0]

In general, qualifying one's opinions is a sign of a good and reasonable interaction with reality.

An expert not beholden to Musk not even a qualification; it's an obvious and necessary criterion.

You see debate-club tactic bullshit in everything because that's how you post.

[John F. Carr]

Some sites attract enough bots to get in the way of serving customers. I find the statement about scraping plausible. Whether the short term goal is to reduce server load or to steer scrapers to a paid API, I can't say.

API fees also hit the news after some Reddit users made pages private to protest the web site charging money for their volunteer work.

Coincidence? The end of the "you are the product" pricing model?

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court, like all federal courts, is first obliged to examine plaintiffs' standing, as a matter of the case or controversy requirement associated with Art. III, to seek injunctive relief in the District Court. This is so even though the issue is raised by neither of the parties. Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 331 (1977). "And if the record discloses that the lower court was without jurisdiction, this court will notice the defect, although the parties make no contention concerning it." FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (plurality opinion).

The district court's published opinion, 405 F.Supp.3d 907 (D. Colo. 2019), recites that it had previously found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the public accommodations clause. The Tenth Circuit's treatment of whether the plaintiffs had shown a credible threat of prosecution is at best speculative. 6 F.4th 1160, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 2021).

[Bored Lawyer]

“The Tenth Circuit’s treatment of whether the plaintiffs had shown a credible threat of prosecution is at best speculative. ”

No it wasn’t. The adverse party was the Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, which is charged with enforcing Colorado’s civil rights laws. And they took the position in this very case that if she denied website services for a gay marriage, that would violate the Colorado law, and subject her to enforcement. The same position they took in prior enforcement actions, including against Masterpiece Cakeshop. The opinions is here: https://casetext.com/case/303-creative-llc-v-elenis-4

If anything, they are too nice. It has been the practice of activists to seek out service providers in this position to create a case. Colorado’s argument was, we can’t act until some customer complains, and who said a customer will complain. Given past history, that is a dodge.

Sorry, this was right in line with many First Amendment cases, where the Court has long held that you don’t have to violate the law and wait for enforcement to raise your First Amendment rights.

[EscherEnigma]

If anything, they are too nice. It has been the practice of activists to seek out service providers in this position to create a case.

Yeah, that's been a lie for decades.

[David Nieporent]

The Tenth Circuit’s treatment of whether the plaintiffs had shown a credible threat of prosecution is at best speculative.

Except in the tautological sense — that all predictions are definitionally speculative — no.

[EscherEnigma]

The Supreme Court, like all federal courts, is first obliged to [...]

do jack-shit.

They can literally create, ignore, toss-out, invent and so-on any rule or procedure they want. They want to address something not argued before them? They can do that. They want to rule beyond the scope of the issue? They can do that. They want to limit the scope to only this case? They can do that.

And while I would argue the current court is being more flagrant in this regard, it's not new: the SCOTUS is only bound by the rules it wishes to bind itself with. The moment it finds any rule inconvenient, it can jettison it, and there is literally nobody that can say otherwise.

[SRG]

I assume the case is unaffected but that there are legal consequences for knowingly filing fake details.

There's a broader question, what happens when the facts on which the SC has decided turn out not be what they thought, or the SC itself makes factual errors?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nothing. See, for example, Kennedy v. Louisiana.

[EscherEnigma]

There’s a broader question, what happens when the facts on which the SC has decided turn out not be what they thought, or the SC itself makes factual errors?

As much or as little as the SCOTUS wants to happen. As Roberts has repeatedly repeated this year, there’s nothing anyone can do to rein them in short of impeachment.

[Martinned]

Justice Jackson seems to have run into a problem last week: https://twitter.com/tedfrank/status/1674541559545573382

[bernard11]

That’s an interesting Twitter thread.

It is indeed correct that Jackson stated the paper's conclusion inaccurately. Maybe she’s no better at math than Roberts.

But let’s be clear.

What she said was that having a Black doctor doubled the survival rate of Black infants. Of course that’s silly. The survival rate would have to be under 50% for that to even be possible.

What the study did show is that the mortality rate of Black infants with Black doctors is half that of Black infants with White doctors, which is a different point, but quite a remarkable one.*

Rather than say anything about this Ted Frank chooses to sneer at her misstatement, call it a slander, and complain about “affirmative action doctors.” Others responding to him are even worse.

The main conclusion here is that Frank is an asshole.

*I find this to be remarkable enough that I think it’s worth looking at possible sources of error pretty closely. It was based only on FL births between 1992 and 2015. Maye there is a data issue.

[StellaLink_the dog]

She probably surmised that halving the failure rate was equivalent to doubling the success rate which, of course, doesn't make any sense. But, silly mistakes akin to this are not rare even among those who would be educated.

[Bored Lawyer]

“What the study did show is that the mortality rate of Black infants with Black doctors is half that of Black infants with White doctors, which is a different point, but quite a remarkable one.*”

Her quoting of this, and the AMA amicus brief that cited it, are both a complete embarrasment. This article vets it pretty thoroughly:

https://libertyunyielding.com/2023/07/01/progressive-supreme-court-justices-cant-do-basic-math/

Here is a key point:

First, the study does not claim to find a doubling in survival rates for black newborns who have a black attending doctor. Instead, in its most fully specified model, it reports that 99.6839% of black babies born with a black attending physician survived compared with 99.5549% of black babies born with white attending physicians, a difference of 0.129%. The survival rate of 99.6839% is not double 99.5549%. The claim that survival rates for black newborns double when they have black physicians is just plain false. The fact that neither the Association of American Medical Colleges nor Jackson’s clerks could read and properly understand a medical study is an alarming indication for the current state of both medical and legal education.

The notion that a 0.129% difference in survival rate has any statistical significance, let alone one important enough to justify affirmative action, is risible.

The rest of the take goes on to point out that, as for many “statistical” analyses, it falters because it compares unlike things:

Second, even if the results of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study were accurately described, they should not be believed. The study’s comparison of death rates for newborns who have doctors of different races does not take into account the fact that black newborns have a greater likelihood of serious medical complications and the attending physicians assigned to treat those more challenging cases are likely to be white.
For example, the study does control for whether newborns are low weight (less than 2,500 grams), but does not control for whether they are very low weight (less than 1,500 grams). Black newborns are almost three times as likely as white newborns to weigh less than 1,500 grams.
Doctors assigned to treat very low-weight babies are more likely to be specialists, rather than regular pediatricians or family practitioners. Black doctors are significantly less likely to be found in those specialized fields.
More than 5% of pediatricians or family practice physicians are black, compared with 3.8% of neonatologists and pediatric cardiologists, and 1.8% of pediatric surgeons.
Rather than demonstrating the protective benefits of black newborns having black doctors, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study only documents that black newborns are more likely to have severe issues that increase their risk of infant mortality, and those severe cases are more likely to have white attending physicians because white doctors are more prevalent in the specialized fields that treat those complications.

The bigger problem here is not that Justice Jackson (and the AMA!) are so innumerate that they don’t understand the difference between doubling the survival rate and doubling the death rate. The real scandal is that this junk “science” is peddled to promote an illegal policy.

As Mark Twain well put it, “There are lies, damn lies and statistics.”

[StellaLink_the dog]

"The notion that a 0.129% difference in survival rate has any statistical significance, let alone one important enough to justify affirmative action, is risible. "

It would be nice if the people complaining about Jackson's mistake would understand how percentages work.
Clue: for example, the difference between 1% and 2% is either 100% or 50%, not 1%.

This is a good example of a corollary which I learned as Skitt's law which states that it's almost impossible to criticize a simple mistake without making another.

[Bored Lawyer]

Your observations has nothing to do with mine. The difference here is still tiny and likely to not be of statistical significance.

And, no, the "difference" between 1% and 2% is only 1%, even though 2% is double 1%.

So if you want to mislead, you can say that the rate of something which is 2% is double the rate of something else, which is 1%. But both are still very small percentages. Which is where Mark Twain's quote comes in.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Your observations has nothing to do with mine. The difference here is still tiny and likely to not be of statistical significance. "

You don't understand what you're saying. The problem with the concern over the difference between the failure rates, if there is a problem, is that the failure rate in either case is of no significance. That's a different claim than the claim that you are making -- that the difference is tiny.

"So if you want to mislead, you can say that the rate of something which is 2% is double the rate of something else, which is 1%"

Sounds like you studied at the Scott Atlas school of epidemiology.

[David Nieporent]

No, that's just wrong. Not that 100% and 50% aren't accurate, but that it's "not 1%." 2% is indeed 1% more than 1%, _relative to the whole._ Sometimes that is more important than comparing the two numbers; it depends what one is trying to measure.

The chance of me winning Powerball is roughly 0.000000571429%. If I buy a second ticket, my chances double (i.e. go up by 100%)! But is that a more meaningful observation than noting that my chance is now 0.000000571429% higher than it was before? No; the absolute difference is more useful than the relative one.

[StellaLink_the dog]

When you are comparing two percentages, what's important is the relationship between these percentages. For example, if you are interested in controlling the spread of a disease, are you unimpressed when the occurrence of the disease increases from .05% to .06% in a week because the arithmetic difference is so small or are you concerned because the prevalence of the disease increased by 20%? Compare that with the concern you may feel, or not, if some phenomenon you are observing increases from 90% to 90.01%.

In this case, where Jackson made her unfortunate silly mistake, the comparison seems to be fatality rates. If the numbers offered above are correct, fatality rates in the group being considered are about 40% higher when the attending physician is white. So the question becomes, which number more accurately reflects the difference? Is it proper to dismiss the difference by saying, "it's only a difference of .129% when comparing survival rates -- who gives a shit?" Or, if the fatality rate among the group is high enough to be a cause of any concern, to say, "a 40% increase is a surprisingly large increase and should not be dismissed without investigating further." In other words, is the fatality rates among the group being looked at so low that a 40% increase just doesn't matter. Note that I am not making any assessment about what the cause of the increase might be, only that citing a very small number and declaring that there is no problem because the number cited is very small is not a proper way to analyze the data.

Some other observations:
At first blush the numbers we are looking at appear to be extraordinarily precise. Comparing .996839 to .995549 and calculating a difference of .001290 -- that's pretty fine. Maybe justified, I don't know.

For the powerball example, I think you are wrong. Buying two tickets doubles your chances and that's the important conclusion. If you recognize that your chance of winning even when you have doubled your bet are so slight as to be stupid small it's not because 0-0 is real small, it's because 2X0 is real small. Someone once asked me why I don't play these lottery games when the jackpot gets very large. My response was that it was more enjoyable to crumble up dollar bills and watch them go down when flushed as my chances of winning, to me, are indistinguishable. Others have observed that the lottery is just a tax on people who can't do math.

[EscherEnigma]

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "fictitious". That Colorado never tried to force Creative 303 to do anything? Literally true. That the entire case is based on a hypothetical? Still true. That Creative 303 lied about being asked to make a website for a gay marriage? Surprisingly, also true (like seriously, why would they lie about this? The case didn't need it, all it accomplished is making them look even more dishonest).

If that adds up to "fictitious case", then sure.

That said, it also obviously doesn't matter. The court decided to rule on acknowledged hypotheticals, so none of that matters. If they'd obeyed their own claimed principles and precedent, then it would have. But this court doesn't care about that, they are very objective-oriented.

[Martinned]

I intentionally didn't use a legal term of art, so that I wouldn't end up having to argue semantics. Thanks for summing up the position.

[EscherEnigma]

Woah now, I'm speaking for myself only. Any relation to "positions" out there is incidental.

[not guilty]

I don't know about "acknowledged hypotheticals." SCOTUS did emphasize the parties' stipulations of fact before the district court. (Slip op., 4-5.)

[EscherEnigma]

Look, the SCOTUS knew what they were doing, and what they were doing was ruling based on hypothetical facts not in evidence. You can dress that up in whatever lawyer-speak you want, but at the end of the day the entire case is based on hypotheticals and fears, not events that actually happened.

[Randal]

The fancy lawyer-speak for it is pre-enforcement challenge.

It makes some sense in First Amendment cases where you're like, I want to say this thing, but I'm afraid I'll get in trouble if I do.

It makes less sense where, as here, you're like, I want to do this thing, but I'm afraid if I do I'll be forced to say this other thing I don't wanna, and I'm afraid if I don't I'll get in trouble.

The extra steps make it more speculative.

This is really the crux of the dissent, and I agree. It all comes down to the framing of the hypothetical, and the plaintiff chose a ridiculously anti-gay framing. The only reason for the court to accept such a framing is so they can issue a ridiculously anti-gay ruling.

If she'd simply framed her hypothetical more accurately as "I want to create Conservative Christian wedding websites" or whatever, there would be no credible chance of enforcement. Anyone -- gay, satanist, jew -- who wanted some other kind of wedding website could be declined by saying "we only do Conservative Christian websites." No problem.

Instead she claimed to want to do wedding websites for everybody! Except gays. Well, that's a problem... and probably a lie anyway. Satanist Jewish weddings are A-OK... as long as they're straight Satanist Jews? Really?

So in the end it's a nonsense hypothetical solely intended to virtue-signal how anti-gay this court is.

[ducksalad]

I understand there are legal requirements about standing and having an actual case or controversy in front of them.

However, when an opponent of the decision dismisses the whole thing as hypotheticals and fears it sounds to a non-lawyer very much like:

“We never do this and we find it unbearable that the SC is not going to let us do it anymore.”

[EscherEnigma]

This is gonna be a big "what you talking about Willis" from me.

(A) How are you defining "opponent of the decision" such that you think you're talking about me? Do I think Smith is a bigot, and Gorsuch a hack? Sure. But I thought that before Friday, so that can't be rational basis for this assumption.

(B) Would you mind clarifying that last line? I literally have no clue what you're talking about.

[ducksalad]

My apologies for being unclear, and for assuming your opinion. Let me rephrase.

If the (fake) event in question was just an unfounded fear, unlikely in real life, why should we care so much how the SC rules on it?

[Randal]

We don't, really, except that in intent and effect it was just a bunch of anti-gay virtue-signaling, and we're unhappy that the court is engaging in such behavior.

[EscherEnigma]

If the (fake) event in question was just an unfounded fear, unlikely in real life [...]

Another thing I didn't claim an opinion on.

[...] why should we care so much how the SC rules on it?

... where have I claimed that you should "care so much" about, well, anything?

[Bored Lawyer]

I linked to the Tenth Circuit case above. Which found standing, even though it ruled against the plaintiff on the merits. Not to mention the three SCOTUS dissenters, none of whom raised standing as an issue.

But please explain to us benighted folk why the 10th Circuit opinion finding standing is wrong.

[not guilty]

Lori Smith and 303 Creative had never offered wedding website services; they averred merely that they intended to do so in the future. An allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened injury is "certainly impending," or there is a " ‘substantial risk’ that the harm will occur." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014). In the case of a pre-enforcement challenge, a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges "an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder." Id., at 159.

The plaintiffs identified no substantial history of prosecutions under CADA, and those prosecutions were complaint-driven. They identified only four prior prosecutions, three of which resulted in findings of no probable cause. 6 F.4th 1160, 1174 (10th Cir. 2021). The fourth involved gay complainants that had actually been refused service, by a business that was not engaged in First Amendment protected speech.

Acknowledging that I am not the relevant decisionmaker, that appears to me to be less than a threatened injury is "certainly impending," or a " ‘substantial risk’ that the harm will occur." The Tenth Circuit ignored the relevant adjectives.

[Bored Lawyer]

The 10th Circuit addressed all of those issues, you just want to ignore this analysis.

If she posted what she wanted on her website -- I do wedding web designs, but not for same-sex weddings -- the Colorado authorities said that would be illegal. Given their past history, the notion that there would not be enforcement is laughable.

(I am also dubious about Colorado's position that they can do nothing without a complaining customer. So if a restaurant posts "No Blacks Allowed" in its window, but no one complains, then Colorado authorities can do nothing? Count me dubious.)

[not guilty]

I never claimed that the Tenth Circuit failed to address the issues. The plaintiffs showed a possibility of future prosecution. I disagree that this possibility amounts to a threatened injury which is “certainly impending,” or a ”‘substantial risk’ that the harm will occur.”

This was a contrived lawsuit from the get go.

[EscherEnigma]

But please explain to us benighted folk why the 10th Circuit opinion finding standing is wrong.

Why would I defend a stance I haven't taken?

[Bored Lawyer]

"a fictitious case"

Problem is, you are using a loaded term. There is a law on the books in Colorado. Which the authority in Colorado charged with enforcing it, has in the past enforced it in the very way that the web designer's planned policy would implicate. And that authority took the position in the very case that they would do so again if called upon. None of those facts are fictitious.

As I pointed out, there is a long line of cases that allows litigation to test Constitutionality of laws, particularly First Amendment laws, without having to violate them. See, for example, Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974).

[Sarcastr0]

There is a law on the books in Colorado. Which the authority in Colorado charged with enforcing it, has in the past enforced it in the very way that the web designer’s planned policy would implicate. And that authority took the position in the very case that they would do so again if called upon. None of those facts are fictitious.

I was happy to accept this case as legit since luck and collusion happen all the time in these policy-heavy areas.
But these facts you laid out make me feel like this went well beyond a collusive or pretextual case to the Court (vs. the parties) straight ignoring justiciability to reach for an outcome they wanted.

[not guilty]

Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974), is relevant, and the facts of that case provide a remarkable contrast. The plaintiff there had twice been warned to stop handbilling on an exterior sidewalk of a shopping center against American involvement in Vietnam and threatened with arrest by police if he failed to do so. His companion who continued handbilling was charged with violating the Georgia criminal trespass law. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that, although he desired to return to the shopping center to distribute handbills, he had not done so because of his concern that he, too, would be arrested; the parties stipulated that, if petitioner returned and refused upon request to stop handbilling, a warrant would be sworn out and he might be arrested and charged with a violation of the Georgia statute. Id., at 455-56.

[not guilty]

SCOTUS on Friday issued its opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elinis. https://www. To its credit, the Court decided only the pure speech issue before it, based largely upon facts that the parties stipulated in the district court.

The Court acknowledged the legitimacy of state anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT persons, opining that states may “protect gay persons, just as they can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public." (Slip op., 14.) The Court reaffirmed that "public accommodations laws play a vital role in realizing the civil rights of all Americans, and governments in this country have a 'compelling interest' in eliminating discrimination in places of public accommodation." (Slip op., 4,) citing Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 628 (1984).

In short, the majority opinion was not the trainwreck that it could have become.

[Martinned]

not the trainwreck that it could have become

Way to set the bar low!

[not guilty]

With the clowns of the current SCOTUS, we should be grateful for small favors. Opponents of discrimination against LGBTs dodged a bullet here.

I hope that the courts will cabin the ruling to a "pure speech" carveout for anti-discrimination measures.

[Martinned]

That's what we thought after the cake people too. It's just like the takings clause: if you stare at it hard enough, anything can be speech.

[not guilty]

I am skeptical of the current Supreme Court’s willingness to do the right thing in future cases.

That having been said, existing First Amendment jurisprudence distinguishes between “pure speech” and governmental regulations of conduct which have an incidental effect on speech. As to the latter category, analysis under United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968), is appropriate:

We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled “speech” whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea. . . . This Court has held that, when “speech” and “nonspeech” elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. . . . [W]e think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

Justice Gorsuch here opined, “This Court has recognized that governments in this country have a ‘compelling interest’ in eliminating discrimination in places of public accommodation Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 628 (1984)”. (Slip op. 12.) Justice Sotomayor observed in dissent that “a law that prohibits only such acts by businesses open to the public is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest. The law ‘responds precisely to the substantive problem which legitimately concerns the State’: the harm from status based discrimination in the public marketplace. Roberts, 468 U.S., at 629.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am skeptical concerning the current Supreme Court's ethics and (related point) viability. There is nothing wrong with the Court, thank goodness, that enlargement could not solve.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you seen Sotomajor lately?? she's certainly "Enlarged" quite
a bit since her confirmation.

[Theendoftheleft]

Which Lubet are you: Steve or his daughter?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have never heard of Steve Lubet, but if you don't like him he couldn't be all bad.

[Theendoftheleft]

I don't like Hitler either...

[StellaLink_the dog]

There you go -- Hitler was kind to his Alsatian bitch.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not believe that.

[Theendoftheleft]

I don’t believe anything you say, AIDS, including your claim about disbelieving my claim to dislike Hitler.

After all, you’ve proven yourself on this site to be a thoroughly duplicitous, hypocritical, totalitarian, one who repeatedly threatens to silence his enemies (despite knowing full well that it is he and his family are eventually going to be Breiviked by his American betters).

[Theendoftheleft]

...

[Bored Lawyer]

For some reason, my longer response was rejected.
Briefly, you make a valid legal distinction. But where I think we disagree is that not every commercial expression becomes subject to the 0'Brien rule. Some businesses by definition deal in expression. Movie production, newspaper publishing, political advertising, are all done for money, and in none of those cases can the expression be considered "incidental" to the business. For an offbeat example, see the recent decision in Green v. Miss United States of Am., LLC, 52 F.4th 773 (9th Cir. 2022).

A website by definition is a means of communicating something, and a website designer is selling her talents, such as they are, to enhance that message. There is nothing "incidental" about the speech/expression aspect.

Same applies to a custom made cake, for which people apparently pay a lot of money for a cake-artist to create a special message. There is a reason they don't just by a pre-made cake at the supermarket or mix-up some Duncan Hines mix, each of which would save them a lot of money.

Your point would be valid for, say, an off-the-shelf or standard-model cake. Those are only incidentally expressive, if at all.

[not guilty]

Do you claim that cake baking -- bespoke or otherwise -- does not include significant "nonspeech" components?

That doesn't pass the giggle test. Recall that the very purpose of David Paul O'Brien's burning his draft card was political protest.

[Bored Lawyer]

Do you think that print up handbills or signs does not involve significant non-speech components? How about printing up a newspaper or blog?

[not guilty]

How would prohibition of printing up handbills, signs, newspapers or blogs involve a governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression?

[not guilty]

The link to the opinions should have been https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf .

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Opponents of discrimination against LGBTs dodged a bullet here."

IIUC, until Bostock there were no protections against discrimination for LGBT's at the federal level. In fact, it was perfectly legal in many places for store owners to put "No Gays Allowed" signs in their windows.

And in 2015, a hardware store owner in Tennessee did just that.

Apparently, he left the sign up for a few days, then replaced it with a sign that said, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech & freedom of religion."

I haven't found other examples of similar policies.

[EscherEnigma]

I haven’t found other examples of similar policies.

That's because modern-day bigots lack the conviction and courage of their 1960s predecessors.

Which is to say, refusals happen plenty, but the businesses don't advertise it ahead of time.

Hell, there's one dress-maker in... Philadelphia I think... that's had two different lesbian couples come in looking for wedding dresses. But since it wasn't against the law to refuse gay customers, the news cycle was basically "one-and-done" in both cases: without litigation, that's what tends to happen.

And that's the wonderful trick: in states where such refusals of service are most common, they aren't against state law, and so there's no recourse if it doesn't go viral (as it typically doesn't).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That’s because modern-day bigots lack the conviction and courage of their 1960s predecessors.

And that is because better Americans have been smacking our vestigial bigots into a defensive, bruised, impotent, increasingly despised position since the 1960s (and earlier).

During my childhood the bigotry was open, common, casual, and loud. The bigots wanted everyone to know that they were bigots, and that their way would be the way. A Black girl, third grade or so, was told to find another way home from school because a half-educated neighbor didn't want her on "his" sidewalk -- and she did. Women were dragged into homes by the sleeve, arm, or hair for beatings from drunken husbands -- after they drove home, drunk, from some dive bar -- for beatings that everyone could hear but no one did anything about. Japanese cars ("rice burners") were keyed and forced to park in distant lots. Jews didn't even get enough respect to be called Jews. Gays were mocked mercilessly and beaten in alleys -- and that was by the police. The Klan conducted recruiting rallies for elementary school students, with a half-assed circus and free concessions. Muslims and Asians didn't get much grief that I observed because there were few or none of them around.

After more than a half-century of American progress (generated against the wishes and efforts of conservatives), however, today's bigots are more guarded and do not wish to be known as bigots, at least not in public. They try to hide their bigotry behind euphemisms ("traditional values," "religious values," "color-blind," "heartland," "conservative values," "Republican") and reserve their genuine views for what they perceive to be safe spaces (private homes, online message boards, Republican committee meetings, faux libertarian blogs operated by bigot-hugging Federalist Society professors).

America has confronted -- and overcome -- successive waves of intolerance and ignorance since its founding, often associated with immigration, skin color, ethnicity, religion, or perceived economic pressures. Those targeted have included Italians, Blacks, Catholics, the Irish, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, atheists, women, gays, agnostics, other Asians, Muslims, eastern Europeans, other Hispanics -- most of America, at one time or another.

What makes America great is that our bigots do not win, not over time. And our current batch of bigots seems nothing special, its reliance on the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Republican Party, the Federalist Society, and the charms, insights, and integrity of Donald J. Trump notwithstanding.

The culture war is not quite over but it has been settled. The bigots are its losers.

So carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit. That is the American way.

[blue-heron]

Well said.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is just what one of the Volokh Conspirators would write if any of them had enough character or decency.

[I Callahan]

It was never going to be a train wreck. This is just your bias talking. The court ruled precisely how it should have.

[Sarcastr0]

If the Court held that state anti-discrimination laws were unconstitutional, it'd be a trainwreck.

Some on here think the market will ensure everyone will get served everywhere, so nothing will change.
Some on here are full on into discrimination, and really hoping it means we'll finally go back to the utopian 1950s of their minds.

These 2 groups don't talk much.

[I Callahan]

No one here thinks we're go back to the "utopian" 1950's. The truth is much closer to the former.

[Josh R]

The Court ruled consistent with Eugene's brief, which seemed like a reasonably high bar to me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I say again, if I want to drive a purple car with pink polka dots, this is a free country and I have every right to do that.

The state is required to register it and (assuming it meets the other safety criteria) the local garage is required to inspect it, and the cops are required not to harass me for driving it.

But Ford isn't required to make it. If they don't offer purple with pink polka dots as an option, and I doubt they do, then they don't have to make one this color just for me. (They can if they want to, but don't have to.)

This is the Mastercake Bakeshop issue -- I make wedding cakes, they come in white with a guy & a gal on the top. You can purchase one of those for your gay wedding, and you can modify it however you want once you have, but you can't make me do it.

Let's go to wedding photography -- forget gay, alcohol tends to be present at the reception. If I have a religious objection to being in the presence of alcohol (or am a recovering alcoholic), no one would require me to accept that gig. Back in the 1950s, Catholic were told they would go straight to hell if they set foot in a Protestant church -- there are some who still believe that -- should they be required to work a Protestant wedding?

[Nige]

‘a purple car with pink polka dots’

‘But Ford isn’t required to make it.’

It’s just a custom paint job, Ed.

'Let’s go to wedding photography — forget gay, alcohol tends to be present at the reception. If I have a religious objection to being in the presence of alcohol (or am a recovering alcoholic), no one would require me to accept that gig'

There may be a flaw in your entire business plan, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My understanding -- from commercial vehicles -- is that you order the vehicle in white and then have a private body shop paint it for you.

I *think* black & white is a police package option, and know that fire chief red is, but these are choices the manufacturer makes.

[Nige]

Blame Henry Ford.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, black paint dried faster which is why he went with it.

[not guilty]

Having decided the case on other grounds, the majority of SCOTUS in Masterpiece Cakeshop did not reach the dubious claim that cake baking is "speech" protected by the First Amendment. That decision is therefore unlike 303 Creative, in that the latter involves a pure speech claim.

If and to the extent that cake baking involves a modicum of "expression," the nonspeech components -- combining the ingredients, baking the cake, frosting the cake, etc. -- predominate. If we assume that it involves "communicative conduct," that would call for analysis under United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968), quoted upthread.

[EscherEnigma]

This is the Mastercake Bakeshop issue — I make wedding cakes, they come in white with a guy & a gal on the top. You can purchase one of those for your gay wedding, and you can modify it however you want once you have, but you can’t make me do it.

Actually, that's Azucar bakery. In that case, the baker was like "I can make you a bible-shaped cake, and give you the tools to write whatever you want on it, but I won't write those words myself".

In Masterpiece, Phillips refused any cake to the gay couple. That's why his lawyers argued that all wedding cakes were "expressive", because he really hadn't just refused specific messages.

And to 303... well, that's neither. Because facts matter, and that case doesn't have facts. What Colorado argued was that if she only wanted to make "gay marriage is sin" websites, she could do that. She just would have to sell it to gay and straight customers alike. Creative 303 is the one that argued that she wanted to categorically refuse customers because she assumed they would want a message she wouldn't write.

The SCOTUS did not opine on the merits of Masterpiece. For Creative 303 they sided with her: a service-provider can assume and project onto a group of customers, and then deny them service on that basis regardless of whatever message they were going to ask for, because apparently in the case of websites, merely negotiating with a gay customer is itself a message.

[John F. Carr]

I saw a car painted with a camouflage pattern. Unwise, perhaps, but not as far as I know illegal. I wonder what color the registration said. Some police think if the observed car color doesn't match the DMV database they get a free traffic stop. Short Circuit, I think, reported on an appellate decision where the state did not allow car owners to update the color in the database.

[Davedave]

"I saw a car painted with a camouflage pattern."

Not a very good one, clearly.

[David Nieporent]

+1

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, if it crashed inTo the woods, it might not be found....

[darkknight9]

But if it knocked over a tree would anyone else hear it?

[darkknight9]

Mint.

[Kazinski]

Well you know what those religious freaks say right?

"Hier stehe Ich, Ich kann nicht anders."
- some guy

[Kazinski]

Last week the NY Times had a story about IRS Whistleblowers claiming that Merrick Garland lied when he said that David Weiss had full charging authority.

The Times reported that Weiss had requested that US Attorneys in LA and Washington DC charge Hunter in their districts and they turned him down.

Now Weiss has basically he did not have full charging authority:

“As the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, my charging authority is geographically limited to my home district. If venue for a case lies elsewhere, common Departmental practice is to contact the United States Attorney’s Office for the district in question and determine whether it wants to partner on the case. If not, I may request Special Attorney status from the Attorney General,” Weiss wrote, “Here, I have been assured that, if necessary after the above process, I would be granted § 515 Authority in the District of Columbia, the Central District of California, or any other district where charges could be brought in this matter.”

Weiss did not have full charging authority, and when he was turned down in his charging request, he did not ask for the additional authority he needed.

That’s at odds with what Garland said publicly: ““He was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own,”

‘Complete authority’ is not the same as ‘geographically limited authority’ especially as the Times story shows Weiss was turned down twice, by Biden appointees, when he tried to charge Hunter outside his district.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/politics/irs-official-justice-dept-hunter-biden.html

[NOVA Lawyer]

These are incredibly pedantic points. And the charges to which the IRS whistleblowers were referring are the tax charges that were, in fact, brought against Hunter Biden, just in Delaware.

“The whistleblowers’ allegations relate to a criminal investigation that is now being prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.” (Weiss, as quoted in National Review).

So, he did have authority to bring the charges and he did bring the charges. You’re really reaching.

[Kazinski]

Different charges from different years, from the Times story:
“A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified. A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story. That episode was confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation.”

And as it turned out, conveniently, after the US Attorney in LA refused to bring the charges the statute of limitations ran out for those tax years.

Well see how pedantic Congress thinks they are.

[NOVA Lawyer]

We still have a couple guys saying one thing, another saying something else. And we have Hunter Biden a soon to be convicted felon, as it should be.

If it's true that other charges were intentionally thwarted and would have made a difference in sentencing or repayment, then punish whoever is involved to the fullest extent of the law, if obstruction or some such can be shown. If they lied beyond the pedantic point you first raised, then I would be happy to see them convicted of perjury and punished accordingly, but hopefully not pardoned like Scooter Libby, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, etc., etc.

[Kazinski]

I don’t have any problem pardoning or commuting sentences of administration hacks and flunkies once the legal process has played out, as long as there aren’t any bodies, nor offshore bank accounts with public money, or actual bribes.

And Scooter Libby wasn't pardoned, he had his sentence commutted. He never should have been convicted since he had nothing to do with outing Valerie Plame, that was Richard Armitage, who never faced any charges.
I think Garland lied to Congress, but I am absolutely certain he didn’t do it for personal gain. He’s just covering for the Biden’s pay to play extravaganza.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NOVA -- *anything* involving tax law is an incredibly pedantic point -- the issues are (a ) was Hunter treated the way you or I would have been and he wasn't, and (b) did Merritt Garland commit perjury.

It appears that someone did -- and by the standards the Trump Admin was held to -- heck, the Bush 43 and Scooter Libby standard, someone should be indicted.

[not guilty]

I will stipulate that Hunter Biden is a scoundrel who has long been trading on his family name.

That being said, I seriously doubt that he was treated the way you or I would have been. How many defendants not named Biden has David Weiss charged with lying about drug use to buy a firearm?

[Dr. Ed 2]

When the firearm is recovered by law enforcement under the circumstances described?

That's what is not being said here.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Right, never.

[Armchair Lawyer]

One must regularly certify certain items for purchasing firearms. In Delaware, this includes certifying that you are a resident of Delaware, as well as certifying you do not currently use illegal drugs.

Lying on these forms is a crime that is prosecuted. Recently a New York Man was sentenced to 15 months in prison because he lied and said he was a Delaware resident when purchasing the firearms. He was not one.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/pr/new-york-man-sentenced-gun-charges

[David Nieporent]

Armchair Lawyer is a dishonest hack. No, he was not prosecuted for "lying on these forms." From the link:

Court filings show that on six occasions, from April through July of 2021, Wynder traveled from New York City, where he was residing, to Delaware and successfully bought a total of 14 handguns and attempted to buy four more. The law provides that when buying a firearm in Delaware, the purchaser must certify in writing that the purchaser is a Delaware resident. Wynder unlawfully did that, providing a former New Castle address and producing a Delaware Identification Card with that address. In fact, Wynder had not lived in Delaware for two years. Wynder admitted at sentencing that he sold the guns at a profit in New York City.

U.S. Attorney Weiss said, “Straw purchasing firearms and illegally selling those firearms to individuals who cannot legally purchase a firearm is a threat to public safety. I commend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for their hard work in investigating this case. For anyone considering purchasing a firearm for someone that cannot legally purchase their own firearm, consider the end result in Mr. Wynder’s case – federal prison.”

In short, this man did far more than just lying on the form. Which precisely makes not guilty's point.

[darkknight9]

"Don't buy for the other guy."

[Absaroka]

.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

All armchair, no lawyer.

But an important member of the Volokh Conspiracy's target audience (uninformed, uneducated, right-wing bigots).

[hoppy025]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/169/

What about this ridiculous case? Here, the buyer bought it and then transferred it to another THROUGH AN FFL. But that wasn't enough for the Nazis in Obama's DOJ.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Abramski was a straw purchase case. Whether it should have been prosecuted at all, I don’t know, but it seems pretty much the same crime for which the lesser Biden was charged and, get this, Abramski received probation which is pretty much equivalent to what Biden received. Maybe one can argue that deferred adjudication (or pretrial diversion) is a significant benefit as compared to a probated sentence but it would seem to me to be a quibling argument.

[hoppy025]

Except it wasn't. The point of the law is to prevent someone from handing it off to someone without an NICS check. That decidedly didn't happen here.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Except it wasn’t." What wasn't?

"The point of the law is to prevent someone from handing it off to someone without an NICS check."

No, it's not. Read the court decisions. The purpose of the law is to require that the person buying the gun is the actual future owner and not a mere intermediary.* Whether the ultimate true buyer is capable of passing a background check and can legally purchase and own the gun is of no bearing. This should be clear to anyone completing the federal form, or to anyone reading the court decisions.

*Legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party is legal. Purchasing a firearm for someone else is not.

[David Nieporent]

Whether the ultimate true buyer is capable of passing a background check and can legally purchase and own the gun is of no bearing.

It is not an element of the offense, but it is the underlying purpose of the law.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. The reason we don't want straw buyers — the reason people use straw buyers in the first place — is because they can't pass the background check. If they could, there wouldn't be any problem to solve.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"It is not an element of the offense, but it is the underlying purpose of the law."

Well, there you go. It's not an element of the crime and it's not a defense. That's what I meant when I said that the fact that the ultimate transfer included a background check was of no bearing. It's like unlicensed people buying and selling firearms. Even if all sales go through a proper transfer with a background check, it's still illegal.

Anyway, two things:
In my first post on this topic I included the comment that I didn't know if Abramski should have been charged. He wasn't an unlicensed dealer and the ultimate purpose of his behaviour was not terribly nefarious. But, he did willfully violate an important law, and pleaded guilty during the process, and straw sales need to be discouraged.

The second thing is about how we got here. This case is of interest because people who claim that Biden got a great deal cite it as an example of people who are not Biden not getting a great deal. But, Biden and Abramski both violated the same law and neither, in my estimation, is much more of a criminal in this matter than the other. And, both got virtually the same punishment.

[Absaroka]

"The reason we don’t want straw buyers — the reason people use straw buyers in the first place — is because they can’t pass the background check.”

FWIW, when Abramski transferred the gun to his uncle, he did so by having an FFL transfer the gun (with the requisite background check) to his uncle (because his uncle lived in a different state, and interstate transfers are required to go through an FFL). So in Abramski’s case, the purpose was to get the gun at a discount, not transfer it to a prohibited person.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My point is if you do *something else* that gets the attention of law enforcement, like leaving your gun in a trash can near a school, *then* you're likely to get prosecuted.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, at least it was an Old School 38 Caliber Revolver (worked pretty well for Jack Ruby)

[StellaLink_the dog]

"leaving your gun in a trash can near a school,"
Which is not something that Hunter Biden did.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Mr. Neirporent seems confused about the difference between what someone is actually charged with....and what they actually did.

In the case in question, what he was actually charged with was lying on the forms. That's what was proven in court.

Illegal sales would have been in New York, and those charges were not pursued.

In the case of Mr. Biden, what he actually was charged with was lying on the form. What he actually did...illegal drug use, prostitution, millions of dollars in tax evasion, unlawfully permitting a minor access to a firearm, possession of a firearm in a safe school area, probably a few more...

[Sarcastr0]

the difference between what someone is actually charged with….and what they actually did.

What you do is related to what you're charged with. You do bad shit, sometimes it's a lesser included they get you with.
That doesn't mean that every time someone does the lesser act they're charged - that lesser act is a tool, and discretion remains.

This is not even law school stuff, this is like listen to the news a bit stuff.

Do you think Noscitur's take is not understanding the real lay of the land?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"In the case in question, what he was actually charged with was lying on the forms. That’s what was proven in court. "

He was charged with six counts of lying on the forms. It appears that, based on the press release, the lie considered most important had to do with straw sales.

As for what " was proven in court, " it looks like nothing was proven in court as Wynder took a plea. But, the record seems to indicate that he was caught because a gun dealer's sales clerk turned him in while he was in the act of trying to make an obviously illegal purchase.

There's really no valid equivalence to be drawn between Biden and Wynder.

[santamonica811]

I usually disagree with Armchair Lawyer's politics. I didn't realize until today that he's simply a lying sack of shit, and I can therefore discount any purportedly factual statement he makes in the future.

Glad I followed this thread. A valuable teaching moment.

[Sarcastr0]

the issues are (a ) was Hunter treated the way you or I would have been and he wasn’t, and (b) did Merritt Garland commit perjury.

The second question has already been well dismantled as laughable.
For the first question, I turn to Noscitur, the one among us with actual experience, who says Hunter was treated *worse* than he would have been if he were just a guy.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/22/thursday-open-thread-142/?comments=true#comment-10121535

"For what it’s worth, as someone who does practice federal criminal law:

Most people who committed these crimes don’t come to the attention of the U.S. Attorney’s office, and Hunter Biden probably only did because of his father.

On the other hand, once the U.S. Attorney’s office decides to prosecute someone for these crimes, it is extremely unusual for them to agree to a misdemeanor plea, and I have never heard of a § 922(g) charge being granted pretrial diversion.

(Delaware is one of the many districts I have never appeared in, and if other practitioners have a different experience I would welcome their feedback.)"

[I Callahan]

Yeah. Not going to jail vs. going to jail is treated worse. You constantly berate the conservative commenters for justifying anything on their side, and here you are blatantly doing it yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

"Most people who committed these crimes don’t come to the attention of the U.S. Attorney’s office."

What the fuck are you talking about?

[I Callahan]

I didn't say that.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Noscitur did, and it makes what you posted unresponsive.

[Randal]

Presumably if it'd gone to trial, Hunter'd've argued selective prosecution aka selective persecution. He probably could've sketched out a pretty good defense that way.

So... plea bargain. He's still being treated worse than any normal person in that he's being prosecuted at all for these crimes.

[not guilty]

Can you identify anyone not named Yick Wo who has successfully asserted selective prosecution and thereby obtained a dismissal or reversal?

[Randal]

By definition, there can't be all that much selective prosecution going on. Maybe they all get plea bargains!

[I Callahan]

Except for the fact that from the net result, nothing is going to happen to him. And anyone else would actually be in jail.

You people are utterly delusional.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"And anyone else would actually be in jail."
If that's true then why can't any of you people come up with a reasonably comparative example of anyone else going to jail?

[Sarcastr0]

“Most people who committed these crimes don’t come to the attention of the U.S. Attorney’s office.”

[StellaLink_the dog]

He is accused/convicted of denying that he was/is a drug user. Of the thousands (perhaps many thousands) who commit this exact crime every year, how many get prosecuted and get sentenced to jail time? As you, I doubt that there are many, if any at all. These people seem to like bringing up only instances of deliberate straw sales criminals and that's a whole nuther level of criminality, as any reasonable observer would recognize.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Since the violation in regards to the tax charges didn't actually occur in Delaware, one may wonder how the charges were brought there....

[not guilty]

Venue is a constitutional right of the accused, which may be waived by him. The tax offenses were charged by criminal information. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23854044-misdemeanors I surmise there was an agreement to waive venue.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Interesting, isn't it.

The only way Weiss could bring tax charges in Delaware, is if Hunter and his lawyers agreed to it.

Seems to give quite a bit of leverage to the defense.

[not guilty]

Charging authority in a federal criminal case in fact is not conferred upon any official(s) of the Department of Justice. Per the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, charging authority lies in the grand jury for the district in which an offense is alleged to have been committed. A prosecuting attorney can ask a grand jury to indict, but cannot bring any charge unilaterally. (Charging by information requires consent of the accused.)

The linked New York Times article in substance describes a conflict between the Attorney General, who said that David Weiss never made a request to be granted special counsel status, and the hearsay account of Gary Shapley, who claims that Weiss told him that he had been turned down when he sought special counsel status.

It looks to me like a tempest in a teapot.

[Kazinski]

Those aren't the facts.

Garland told Congress Weiss had (as in already) full authority to bring charges in any venue (or more technically bring the charges before a grand jury).

Weiss requested the cooperation of the Biden Appointed US Attorneys in the venue the charges needed to be brought, they refused.

Weiss did not then request the authority that Garland had told Congress Weiss already possessed, and then the statute of limitations on at least the LA charges lapsed.

Weiss then brought only misdemeanor charges for only the charges that could be brought in Delaware, letting Hunter skate on the other charges.

The NY Times story makes that pretty clear, and Weiss himself blinked ("I...wish to expand upon what this means") when it came to answering a direct question from Congress.

In Weiss' June 7th letter, which turns out waa written for him by the DOJ, it in which he said he had "ultimate" authority in the charging decision turns out to be semantics. If you get turned down when you ask, and you don't then ask for the additional authority, then you don't have the "ultimate" authority. Weiss clearly says now in the June 30 letter that he only had limited authority to bring charges in Delaware.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Keep fighting the good fight!! You can do it!! 😉

[not guilty]

It appears that special counsel status, which would have bypassed the unwillingness of U.S. Attorneys outside Delaware to proceed, was Weiss’s upon request of Merrick Garland. According to Garland, Weiss never made such a request.

Robert Browning wrote that a man’s reach should exceed his grasp. Here it seems that “ultimate” authority was beyond Weiss’s grasp, but within his reach.

[Michael P]

Also according to Garland, Weiss in fact had that authority. His earlier statement to Congress did not express a condition on Weiss requesting special counsel status.

According to other witnesses and their contemporaneous evidence, Weiss asked for that status and was denied.

[not guilty]

"According to other witnesses and their contemporaneous evidence, Weiss asked for that status and was denied."

Uh, no. No one having personal knowledge has asserted that. Gary Shapley has asserted that Weiss told him that he had been turned down when he sought special counsel status.

There is a difference.

[Michael P]

There's also a difference between having special counsel status and not having it, but that difference doesn't seem to matter to you or to Merrick Garland. Perhaps that explains why Garland turned down the request.

[not guilty]

Merrick Garland said no such request was ever made. Do you have any facts to contradict that?

[Michael P]

What facts do you have? A sad faith in the inconsistent pronouncements of Merrick Garland is not a fact.

[Sarcastr0]

You prefer lying Congressional releases. Honest folks, those GOP Congresspeople!

[not guilty]

Again, Merrick Garland said no such request regarding designation as a special counsel was ever made. No one with personal knowledge has asserted that Weiss did make such a request.

You kvetch about Garland's alleged "inconsistent pronouncements," yet you identify none. Confirmation bias against crediting the Attorney General's statement is not a fact, Michael P. You have done nothing but dodge the question.

[Kazinski]

My understanding was that Shapley said, and the other IRS whistleblower, and the Times independent source all said when Weiss asked for the cooperation of the other US attorneys, which he needed because he didn’t have special counsel privileges he was turned down.

I am not aware of any claim he actually asked for Special Counsel status, he probably knew that he wouldn’t get it, or there would be consequences.

And Shapley's claim that Weiss did not have complete charging authority has been confirmed by Weiss in the June 30 letter.to Jordon (although Weiss hasn't confirmed he told Shapley that in a meeting in front of 6 witnesses, but that's hardly necessary now).

[Michael P]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whistleblowers-hunter-biden-tax-investigation-new-transcripts/

"Weiss sought special counsel status from the [Justice Department] in the spring of 2022 and was once again denied. Weiss sought to bring charges in the Central District of California in the fall of 2022 and had that request denied in January of 2023."

[David Nieporent]

Why are you quoting a member of Congress lying about the evidence, rather than someone with actual knowledge?

[Kazinski]

The CBS link has the transcripts of both the IRS whistleblowers.

Last week when the whistleblowers claimed that Weiss had told them that he didn't have special counsel status, and didn't have charging authority outside Delaware they were called liars.

Friday Weiss confirmed he did not have, does not have, and never did have charging authority outside his district, contrary to what Garland told Congress.

[Randal]

Everybody agrees with all of that, terrorist-boy. The question above is whether he ever even requested special counsel status. Catch up!

[Sarcastr0]

contrary to what Garland told Congress

How can you still type this after reading this thread??

[David Nieporent]

Also according to Garland, Weiss in fact had that authority. His earlier statement to Congress did not express a condition on Weiss requesting special counsel status.

Garland: "Weiss has the authority to come into the office on nights and weekends whenever he wants."
You: "But when he gets there he has to knock on the door to be let in by the security guard. Therefore Garland is lying because he didn't mention that condition."

[Michael P]

The authority to bring charges before a grand jury would be granted by approving special counsel status, or directing other US Attorneys to cooperate with the charges that Weiss sought. Neither that approval nor such direction was ever issued, so the claimed authority was never delegated. It’s not analogous to having to check in before working off hours.

[David Nieporent]

The authority to bring charges before a grand jury would be granted by approving special counsel status,

You can't approve something that was't asked for. It's exactly analogous: Weiss never bothered to knock on the door, so the security guard didn't let him in. If he had knocked, he'd have been let in.

or directing other US Attorneys to cooperate with the charges that Weiss sought.

That's not how it works.

[Kazinski]

Its more like Garland said: "Weiss is in the office working now, I let him in myself" When Weiss had never been in the building.

[Randal]

No, that would've been a good terrorist analogy if Garland had said "Weiss has already charged Hunter Biden, I granted him the authority myself." But he didn't.

[Sarcastr0]

Going from 'this is a huge coverup, Biden it toast' to
'well, complete authority is not strictly correct if you come in ignorant of how federal criminal law is practiced.'

This is why you don't come in hot to a scandal like this so soon.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This.

[Kazinski]

I think next steps for Congress is to get Garland, the two AUSA's and Weiss in front of them to testify under oath. Shelley has already testified under oath.

Then if Congress isn't satisfied that Garland was telling them the truth then they should find Garland in contempt of Congress and refer charges to the DOJ.

As futile as that sounds there is a recent case which shows how seriously the DOJ takes Congressional prerogatives:

"“Since my first day in office, I have promised Justice Department employees that together we would show the American people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts and the law and pursues equal justice under the law,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Today’s charges reflect the department’s steadfast commitment to these principles.”

“As detailed in the indictment, on Sept. 23, 2021, the Select Committee issued a subpoena to Mr. Bannon,” said U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves for the District of Columbia. “The subpoena required him to appear and produce documents to the Select Committee, and to appear for a deposition before the Select Committee. According to the indictment, Mr. Bannon refused to appear to give testimony as required by subpoena and refused to produce documents in compliance with a subpoena.”
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/stephen-k-bannon-indicted-contempt-congress

If Garland is convinced he did nothing wrong he can face a jury like everyone else.

If Garland continues to administer his department providing favored treatment to the powerful then the next step is impeachment.

[not guilty]

Do you claim that Merrick Garland has heretofore committed perjury while testifying before either house of Congress or before any Congressional committee? If so, please specify: (1) the particular language you contend was false, (2) what facts evince Garland's mens rea, that is, that he acted deliberately and with knowledge that the testimony was false, and (3) the matter(s) to which the false testimony was material.

If you are unable to give these specifications, please say so.

[Kazinski]

Hey, I'm not the one who will be running the hearings, but the hearings will be run.

I did quote Garlands public statements above which are at varience with the facts. I'm pretty sure he said the same thing to Congress but I'm not going to start a research project to dig it up, but I'm confident it's being worked in as we blather.

[not guilty]

IOW you are speculating.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"If Garland continues to administer his department providing favored treatment to the powerful then the next step is impeachment."

If you continue to ignore the facts and actual lawyers telling you that you don't understand what you're talking about, then you'll continue to be wrong and make wildly amusing accusations.

[Kazinski]

Garland 'Weiss has complete authority '

Weiss signing letter written for him by DOJ 'I had ultimate authority' which when the meaning is 'expanded' means 'I had limited authority'.

Explain away, but Congress will be the fact finders on what was said, and what it meant.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Like I said - actual lawyers are telling you that your understanding of the situation and process is simply mistaken.

You're choosing to listen to people who have deliberately and repeatedly mischaracterized the evidence they claimed to have.

When Weiss reached out to the California USAO and they did not wish to prosecute, how do you know Weiss didn't therefore have 'complete authority' as he claims?

Because you say he didn't choose to get his Special Counsel status? That's your 'evidence' that he is lying about his authority? If you claim to have 'complete authority' to take your neighbor's car to the store and you choose to instead walk to the store, that doesn't disprove anything.

How do you know that Weiss didn't use his 'complete authority' to decide that if the California USAO doesn't want to prosecute, that it wasn't worth the added cost and effort of becoming a Special Counsel? Do you think prosecutorial discretion is only evaluated at one specific time and place?

That decision was within his 'complete authority' to make. Yet that isn't a possibility to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You're dead-set on your belief that Weiss or Garland must be lying because Hunter Biden wasn't charged everywhere for everything.

Maybe you should just listen to the subject matter experts.

[NOVA Lawyer]

deleted - reposted in correct thread.

[Longtobefree]

Damn! I hate it when that happens!

[Martinned]

Unfortunate news from India, even though the specific case of Twitter might have become moot by now.

In July 2022, Twitter took the Indian government to court over its orders to block certain accounts and tweets. Several free speech experts hailed it as a significant lawsuit.

It was the first instance of a social media company suing the government over its content takedown orders, often criticised for being arbitrary and opaque.

Last week the Karnataka High Court dismissed Twitter's case and imposed a fine of 5m rupees ($61,000; £48,000) on the company for not complying with the contested orders for over a year. Twitter has more than 24 million users in India, by one estimate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-66083645

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do unfortunate news from France (also Belgium, Switzerland and spreading).

[Martinned]

It turns out if you discriminate against people long enough, they're going to start setting sh*t on fire. As an American, that shouldn't surprise you.

[Frank Drackman]

Absolutely, see 6th, January, 2021

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, a mostly peaceful protest against discrimination. Bullshit!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

[Frank Drackman]

Peaceful except for the murder of an Iraq/Afghanistan Veteran by an Affirmative Action (Redacted)

[Nige]

'Italian researcher shares extraordinary evidence of world's 'first' UFO crash - 14 years before Roswell - and the secret office set up by Mussolini to study the craft that was later captured by US forces'

Yes. I see.

[Martinned]

How did you get from my "setting sh*t on fire" to "mostly peaceful protest"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Parody, sarcasm? From St George Floyd.
How is "setting shit on fire" justified?

[StellaLink_the dog]

The problem with parody/sarcasm on the internet, as Mr. Poe observed, is that it's almost impossible to differentiate the true wanker from one who is just pretending to be a wanker. Nietzsche and Walt Kelly may have made similar observations though without the internet part.

[Martinned]

It's like just war theory, except domestically. There's only so much oppression and mistreatment a group has to accept, and so much defeat in the democratic process and the law courts, before violence as an ultimum remedium becomes acceptable.

In the 1960s African Americans set sh*t on fire. Promises were made to make them stop, and one might plausibly argue that those promises weren't entirely kept.

If you prefer white people examples: The IRA in Northern Ireland in the 1960s were also quite justified in reaching for violence.

[Commenter_XY]

NYC going after the Jews again....

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/373566

Where is the Thomas More Society when you need them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"classes are held only in Yiddish, and there were no classes in the English language, reading, spelling, writing, mathematics, etc."

IF it is that -- and ONLY that -- then I don't have a problem with the state stepping in. And this was a real issue in Maine in the '80s, and it worked itself out when good people on both sides struck a compromise that both sides could live with -- and that was the backstory on the public tuition issue that went to SCOTUS.

Before the sex scandal, Buddy Franklin was the wildly popular leader of the Bangor Baptist Church (BBC), which also had a related K-12 school. The state conceded that their met all state standards, actually in some ways was better than a lot of public ones.

The BBC said that the only BA their teachers needed was to be "Born Again" (an aspect of the BBC's religion) while the state wanted them to be certified as K-12 teachers, which (then) required a BA and four specific education courses (at a minimum). And the BBC quietly conceded that there were several other Christian schools that were woefully inadequate, something that anyone involved in Maine education at the time was aware of.

I don't know who sued whom first, and the Maine Christian Civics League (Jasper Wyman) got involved as well and the whole thing wound up before (IIRC) a 3-judge panel so it could go directly to SCOTUS. About a week into the trial, both sides realized that the other might win, and the consequences of that was that they settled mid-trial.

Bottom line was that the majority of the teachers* had to be certifiable but not certified, and that the curriculum had to be equal to Maine DoE requirements, but didn't have to be approved by the DoE. The state introduced home schooling regs and the small iffy Christian schools became parents homeschooling, which essentially is what was happening anyway. And I think this is where the outside accreditation came in -- the DoE accepting the outside accreditor's approval.

I know there is a lot of bad blood between certain Jewish communities and the NYC/NY government, for a lot of legitimate reasons on both sides, both recent and past.

But the bottom line is that you gotta teach this stuff. Ideally you do a fairly competent job at it, but at the very least, you gotta teach it -- or give up your truancy waiver and have the children attend a public school during the day, and then your religious one later (e.g. the Catholic CCD model).

EV may disagree with me, but I can't see any religious defense against a requirement to teach what is now called "English Language Arts" (reading, writing, spelling, & grammar) and basic math -- along with some science and history. These kids are going to need to know this to live in American society -- or is that the goal here?

In Northern Maine, the parents did NOT want their children to get a good education because then they would leave the state. Maybe that's an issue here -- it wouldn't surprise me to learn that these communities are afraid of loosing their children to the outside world.

*Public schools were (and are) allowed to have some of their teachers either un-certified or (more often) with a different certification under "hardship" waivers. This is way more common than a lot of people realize.

[Krayt]

The City of New York announced last weekend that 18 yeshivas that receive municipal funding do not provide basic education for their students.

No need to go past the first sentence on this one.

[SRG]

The yeshivot are guilty of chillul hashem, IMO - and are also likely in violation of R Jochanan the sandal-maker's instruction in Mishnah Avot, that each man should seek a worldly occupation.

[Commenter_XY]

Without knowing the facts, you lodge the charge. Maybe find out the facts?

[Sarcastr0]

The facts are well known – have been since 2022.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2022/09/28/hasidic-schools-yeshiva-education

[Commenter_XY]

Wbur? LOL. Sarcastr0, I figured you'd be good with NYC's move, singling out Hasidic Jews for persecution and legal harassment. You showed the same tendency during the pandemic. Utterly predictable.

There will be a NY state legal case, again. We'll see if Professor Blackman and the Thomas More Society have future involvement in this case. I hope and expect that they will.

[Sarcastr0]

Come on. This isn’t harassment, their schools aren’t schools. It traps people in the community against their will. That is a measure of abuse of both people and the system. This is all well documented.

Under what logic are you cool with this?

And I think you forgot our dialogues during Covid in favor of an easier narrative for you. We talked about necessity and you convinced me a number of times about the enforcement being overzealous at the time. Not unconstitutional but bad policy.

[SRG]

It's not singling out, but some Hasidic groups, particularly Haredim are notorious for behaving as though civil law does not apply to them, whether COVID regs or crowd safety.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Facts are not needed by the convinced.

Happy 4th.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is no kook like a religious kook . . . and none more reprehensible than those who abuse children to flatter childish nonsense and silly superstition.

[Frank Drackman]

well maybe this guy
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/penn-state-professor-themis-matsoukas-dog-se_n_648b0a19e4b025003ee2ba95

[StellaLink_the dog]

Maybe just not clever enough to claim a religious imperative as a defense.

[bernard11]

You think what the yeshivas are doing is OK?

It's not. Not at all. Nor is it necessary or desirable as a matter of religious education.

I attended an Orthodox elementary school. We spent the mornings on religious studies, mostly reading chumash, a few other things. Afternoons were spent on normal secular subjects. As a result we got out of school later in the day, and went longer in the summer, than public schools, in order to satisfy state regulations.

No reason the Hasidic schools can't do that. What they seem to be doing strikes me as abusive.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's almost like they don't want their children to be *able to* leave their community and succeed in the outside world.

Like I said, I saw this in Northern Maine -- they wanted their children able to work in the woods or at the paper mill, but not able to go get a job in Boston. (And then the mill closed....)

[Randal]

I know some families that work this way. They don't want their kids to be capable enough to ever be self-sufficient. It's pretty sick.

[SRG]

No reason the Hasidic schools can’t do that. What they seem to be doing strikes me as abusive.

Precisely so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

With all the hysteria over abortion, I'd like to point out something:

The 14th Amendment states that a *state* may not deny the right to "life, liberty, or property" without due process. If the SCOTUS justices were as hard core right as some allege, the Dobbs decision would have cited this and been that the states are not PERMITTED to perform abortions.

After all, how do you give a fetus due process???

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Life begins at 5 weeks and 6 days.

Governor Rob DeSantos

[not guilty]

The Fourteenth Amendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Even Dobbs did not declare fetal personhood. The nut graph of Dobbs is:

A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” . . . It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. . . . These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, . . . the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.

[Citations omitted.] Nothing limits the state's "legitimate interests" to those specified -- to do so would be entirely inconsistent with rational basis analysis.

Suppose a state were to enact a statute providing that, on pain of criminal penalties, every pregnancy of a woman less than 21 years old must be aborted. (Unlikely to happen, I know, but there is a reason it's called a hypothetical.)

Such a statute would pass constitutional muster according to Dobbs. It is a law regulating abortion, which entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” There is a rational basis on which the legislature could think that babies and children born to underage women are more likely to wind up on public assistance than those born to mothers age 21 and older. Preservation of the public fisc is a legitimate state interest.

In this hypothetical, the Dobbs chickens would come home to roost.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that such a hypothetical was not being argued in Dobbs.

I don't think it would pass muster under "liberty" and (of all things) the contraceptive decisions. I would be surprised if bearing a child wasn't considered a "liberty" right.

Now if you want to set it as under 18 and protection of minors, I'm not so sure...

But you miss my whole point -- someone defining a fetus as a person, and that *is* the position of the ProLife movement.

[not guilty]

"I don’t think it would pass muster under 'liberty' and (of all things) the contraceptive decisions. I would be surprised if bearing a child wasn’t considered a 'liberty' right."

Think so? Remember that Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is still good law. I'm surprised that Justice Alito didn't cite it in Dobbs for the proposition that a pregnant woman has no right of bodily autonomy vis-a-vis the state.

[EscherEnigma]

In this hypothetical, the Dobbs chickens would come home to roost.

In that hypothetical, the SCOTUS does a pirouette that would make any ballerina proud and says "no".

It was a political decision. Taking them at their word is the act of a fool.

[Martinned]

A feutus is not a person, because a person has to have been born, as per the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States (...) nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Voize]

In fairness I would have to say that phrase is consistent both with "persons unborn" being a valid category and with it not being one.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But not in any relevant way. Clearly, only persons born in the United States or naturalized, and they can only be naturalized after birth, are acknowledged as citizens under the Constitution. Most persuasively, only born persons have rights even if, for some other purposes or in some people’s opinions, there are such things as unborn persons.

I suppose you still have the possibility of arguing that non-citizens have some rights and so an unborn fetus could be a non-citizen "person" and so have some rights, just not the rights guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

[ducksalad]

Is there a general consensus that "any person" means "US citizens" in the 14th Amendment? So that, for example, the State of New York executing a British tourist without a trial is not unconstitutional, but merely a poor policy decision?

You might say other parts of the Bill of Rights prohibit that....but my understanding is the BoR only applies to the states at all through the 14th Amendment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

No, there is no such consensus. Of course, that is not permitted. But the rights of citizens and non-citizens are not coextensive. But I misstated things when I said non-citizens had no rights under the 14th Amendment. You are right. They most definitely do.

The point is that it's a weird argument that a fetus conceived and continuously within the United States is a person with Constitutional rights, because, the text of the Constitution makes clear, that fetus cannot be a not a citizen until born (and so is an undocumented....what, exactly?). Basically, the argument Dr. Ed is making requires creating a new category of non-citizen people, a category that has not been recognized in the 250 history of the country. It's anti-originalist.

The stronger argument is that the Constitution equates "persons" to persons born.

[ducksalad]

I agree that persons in the constitution means persons born. For example, very few people would say the census ought to count a pregnant woman twice. Although maybe Dr. Ed would....

[ducksalad]

This is not very good and I think you know it.

By your logic someone born outside the US is not a person either, since both "born" and "in the United States" modify the same instance of "persons". And therefore, legal permanent residents and tourists on a visa could be executed without due process.

On top of that, you used the ellipsis to make it appear that the born or naturalized restriction applies to the life, liberty, or property clause, rather than the citizenship clause you for some reason chouse to delete. The life etc clause is preceded by "any person", not "persons born or naturalized".

I don't buy the fetus is a person argument either, but the 14th amendment doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

[Bob from Ohio]

The “(…) ” makes your comment misleading.

“Born” only modifies the first right, national and state citizenship. Not the other rights which run to “persons”.

[I see ducksalad made the same point earlier]

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is true, but it remains the case that interpreting the Constitution to include fetuses as "persons" is anti-originalist and illogical.

To make that claim, you end up with "persons" who have "lived" their entire existence within the United States, but are not citizens until born. So, prior to being born, they are some weird category of non-citizens, but not immigrants. It's an argument appealing only to those who are invested in a single answer to the question.

[John F. Carr]

I'm tempted to say declaring fetal personhood would have gone beyond the question presented, but arguably the court already went beyond the question presented. The court was asked to decide whether a 15 week limit was constitutional.

[not guilty]

Dobbs was result oriented malarkey, topside to bottom. The grant of certiorari was limited to Question 1 presented by Mississippi's cert petition, to-wit: "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional." https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/145658/20200615170733513_FINAL%20Petition.pdf

The cert petition expressly declared at page 5, "To be clear, the questions presented in this petition do not require the Court to overturn Roe [v. Wade] or [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey. They merely ask the Court to reconcile a conflict in its own precedents."

[Kazinski]

Wrong place.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Does he have a mouth that words come out of?? Because that always comes in handy at a time like this. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

I write this as someone who saw UMass Amherst introduce de-facto affirmative action in admissions, get caught at it, have the state outlaw what they were doing, and then proceed to do the same thing again via different means. And still doing that today, with apparent impunity.

What got them caught was the larger (reportable) attrition rate, which one year exceeded 50%. Yes, over half of the students who had entered as freshman the prior fall weren't students that fall -- some had flunked out, some had dropped out, some had transferred, and a couple had died. Throw in massive numbers of students transferring in and they had some really funky statistics like over 100% of the admitted White students graduating because so many were transferring in.

The much higher Black attrition rate, along with much lower SAT & GPAs, came out -- UMass had affirmative action even though no one could really figure out *how* UM did.

The state stepped in and set a minimum SAT & GPA which ended that version of affirmative action as everyone (regardless of color) had to meet the minimum level -- and desperate for students (this was before the Millennials arrived) -- and took *anyone* who met the cutoff level.

But then they expanded the concept of "special admission" -- normally for things like football players and exempt from all SAT/GPA requirements. A quarter century later, they're still doing that. And have a lot of minority-only scholarships and graduate fellowships, mostly funded with public funds ranging from Federal grants to revenue from campus parking tickets, along with general E&G monies (tuition & state allocation).

This is what everyone is going to do -- they aren't going to lower their standards -- they are going to EXEMPT people from their standards for "diversity" reasons, or because of "past discrimination" mentioned in the application essay.

Call me cynical, but I don't think we won last Thursday -- Affirmative Retribution will not end until colleges are not permitted to even know the student's race. We're still at the level of Baake -- it's unconstitutional, but you can play your games pretending it is not.

[John F. Carr]

The Boston Globe took some time off bemoaning freedom of speech to write about the burden placed on schools by the ban on discrimination. Any burden is self-imposed. Taking race out of the admissions process reduces admissions' workload. The job only becomes harder if the school needs to hide a policy of discrimination. The Globe writer must have assumed that racial discrimination is a fixed law of nature rather than a policy choice.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://vdare.com/radio-derb/if-harvard-went-meritocratic-a-feast-for-cynics-and-when-racial-favoritism-is-ok-etc
see here:
11:38 A feast for cynics. (Channeling George Wallace.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you want to keep up with what's happening at white supremacist, right-wing-kook websites, the Volokh Conspiracy is a fine place to start.

[SRG]

If a college found that. on the basis of historical data, a candidate admitted with a 1250 SAT from an A-rated school district on average graduates with the same GPA as a candidate admitted with a 1200 SAT from a D-rated school district, so when given a choice between two otherwise similar candidates, one with a 1240 SAT from an A-rated SD, and the other, with a 1220 SAT from a D-rated SD, when the college admits the latter student, is this "discrimination" or a reasonable decision based on potential? Does it matter if it turns out that minorities are over-represented amongst candidates from lower-rated SDs, or is this still race-neutral admission?

[Dr. Ed 2]

THAT'S WHY THEY DEVELOPED THE SAT!!!!

The admissions deans all (personally) knew the folk at the various prep schools -- but had no idea about PS 12345 in NYC. So they tried to have a test that indicated the child's aptitude, independent of high school grades and recommendations and the rest.

[Magister]

The SAT was originally developed to exclude racial minorities.

[I Callahan]

Why weren’t they passing the SAT’s?

[Magister]

I didn't say it succeeded.

[bernard11]

Of course it's not discrimination.

Colleges used to, probably still do, run a regression on various things to project GPA. You could certainly include the quality of the school district, though it gets a little tricky since that's correlated with the SAT score. Maybe you adjust the SAT score for district.

[SRG]

That's my point - if a D-rated SD has a -5% effect on SATs, adjust a student's score upwards accordingly.

Interestingly I have found a fair amount of hostility on the right against this idea of "admit on potential not achievement" even though it's explicitly race-neutral. One may speculate about why.

[Don Nico]

The 5% effect is not statistically significant. To prove that it is we'd have to see the range of scores taken by the large samples of the same students taking the test multiple times.

Its utility as a measure of either academic or career potential is also highly questionable. I could relate my own history and that of other students in my class who applied to a certain top 5 R1 university. I was not the one admitted, but I out performed them all. But it is only an anecdote.

[SRG]

The 5% effect is not statistically significant.

If I asserted it as a hypothetical, it is statistically significant for purposes of the hypothetical. I have learned, over the years and to my surprise, that many people have cognitive difficulties with hypotheticals.

Whether in practice it is significant depends, of course, on sample size but my original post on the subject specifically referenced the use of historical data. Furthermore, the traditional statistical significance value of 95% is subject to at least three criticisms - first, 95% is in any event an arbitrary number, second, often enough expectation is the more useful value because it includes effect size, and third, that significance value typically ignores Bayesian reasoning.

But, as I said, for purposes of the hypothetical, if's 5%.

[EscherEnigma]

Call me cynical, but I don’t think we won last Thursday — Affirmative Retribution will not end until colleges are not permitted to even know the student’s race. We’re still at the level of Baake — it’s unconstitutional, but you can play your games pretending it is not.

Remarkable. I actually agree with Dr. Ed for once.

I predicted months ago that the SCOTUS was never going to mandate race-blind measures, they were going to refute the specific plans in question and punt on the actual question for another five-to-ten years.

And that's exactly what they did.

I've also been saying that most of America just doesn't care about this issue as much as lawyers and the SCOTUS do. Sure, people have an opinion (which the polls show), but this was never going to be a riots-in-the-street decision regardless of how it came out. It's much more of a "news cycle and done" sort of deal.

And I stand by that prediction as well: while some of last weeks decisions are going to still be talked about months from now, the AA one is going to be over-and-done quickly.

[Ben_]

Any non-black student who doesn’t get in has a plausible case for racial discrimination. Look forward to a huge number of such cases across the country for many years to come. They’re going to pay and pay and pay until they stop discriminating based on race.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, they can try. Like Fisher (the eponymous girl from Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)), they run the risk of great embarrassment if it comes out in discovery that it wasn't AA that kept them out of the school, but just them not being qualified.

But yes, these cases will continue, because the SCOTUS did not mandate race-blind measures, it just said that this particular pan is bad. There will be a new case in five-to-ten years before the SCOTUS, where they'll repeat the same charade.

[Ben_]

It shouldn’t be too hard of a case. Race preferences are now illegal.

Any student with compelling merit who was rejected, any disparity in admissions (which, as Ed said, tends to be very obvious) and any race-conscious quotes from university admissions people, like bragging about "seeing diversity" on campus. That should win. Maybe not always, but if one student can win against a university, 50 more can win after that.

I don’t think university people will learn to shut up about race until they lose a whole bunch of these cases.

[Sarcastr0]

Wrecking the judiciary is not going to give us a colorblind society.

That this case creates an unsustainable floodgate of litigation is a weird thing to argue if you support the case.

Finally, the question in this context is not one of no diversity or of some: it is a question of degree. How many fewer leaders Harvard would create without racial preferences, or how much poorer the education at Harvard would be, are inquiries no court could resolve. … nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.

[Ben_]

University people could just stop breaking laws. I know that’s an alien concept to modern Democrats, but they might want to try it anyway.

I hope adjudicating cases of lawbreaking isn’t too inconvenient for judges and court officials, given that it’s their job.

[Sarcastr0]

I hope adjudicating cases of lawbreaking isn’t too inconvenient for judges and court officials, given that it’s their job. So if a court interprets the law in a way that makes the law cause huge administrative or implementation issues, that’s usually a sign they got the law wrong. So for instance Congress is assumed not to intend to open a floodgate of litigation.

I know, living in a functional society is something that you work hard to enusre infuriates you. But that is the way it is.

More importantly, university people(?) *weren’t breaking the law.* And I’m pretty sure they don’t plan to break the law – despite the right-wing paranoia of radical administrators, the risk takers are not who goes into higher education management.

And, importantly, your sense of what the law has become ignores the actual case. As the quotes I showed you lay out, there’s a lot more flexibility than you imagine.

[Ben_]

"there’s a lot more flexibility"

They are welcome to talk about that in court. They have flexibility to admit an individual student, but if the overall numbers show obvious disparities, and the admissions people are found to have expressed (in public or in emails) racial preferences or "diversity" percentages then the university will lose sometimes.

And one loss should lead to more, because there are a lot of students of each race, and a finding of racial discrimination potentially implicates every rejection for every student of the same race, and maybe students of other races.

So yeah, "flexibility". But discrimination based on race is illegal. So they don't legally have the "flexibility" to achieve what they intended their policy to achieve before the decision.

Finally, the question is, will they conspire to do it anyway? And are university people good conspirators, able to keep their true intentions confidential and unrecorded?

[Sarcastr0]

if the overall numbers show obvious disparities, and the admissions people are found to have expressed (in public or in emails) racial preferences or “diversity” percentages then the university will lose sometimes.

That argument that statistically disparate impact stuff implies discrimination also doesn’t fly in our courts. That is well established law. To change that you’d need another SCOTUS case.

Look in contrast to the suit against legacy admissions - they claim an individualized causal connection.

[Ben_]

Numerical disparities don’t prove discrimination by themselves. But when you combine them with emails or public statements from officials expressing support for discrimination then you’re at least most of the way there.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you are not.
Not without a change of the underlying law about how to prove discrimination, honed by years of cases being brought by minorities.

[Randal]

Race preferences are not now illegal. Ed and Escher are right.

It's totally legal for Harvard to have race preferences. It's also legal for them to implement their race preferences, as long as they do so by looking at characteristics other than race, like geography, socioeconomics, and history of discrimination.

They could probably get away with having questions like this on the application:

1. Have you ever been discriminated against because of your race?

2. Did you grow up in a primarily Black neighborhood?

3. Do you live in a majority-minority district?

It strikes me that conservatives are suddenly panicked about institutional racism and disparate impact. Thanks for finally getting it!

[EscherEnigma]

You kinda missed my point.

The reputational risk and expense for the student is much greater then for the institution, especially if they can't find a pro bono lawyer willing to champion the case.

And pro bono lawyers willing to champion ideological AA cases? Not all that common.

[Ben_]

I disagree on the reputational risk. The risk will be that people find out the student wasn’t qualified. Since the school already rejected the student, the new information isn’t new in that case. And 19-year-olds don’t generally have a valuable reputation in anyway. The risk is therefore is very low.

And many people applying to prestigious universities with high rejection rates have plenty of money to hire an attorney.

[ducksalad]

Side question, Dr. Ed.

What's so bad about flunking 50% of freshmen?

The most accurate measure of whether you can handle college is actually doing it. Some state schools used to allow in anyone who had even a fighting chance, and then weed out something like a third to a half of them in the first year. Sometimes quite intentionally.

It's not like those who flunked out died. They went to another school, or changed majors, or did something else with their lives.

It all disappeared with the concept of letting adults try things at their own risk, especially when the risk is just not all that big.

Making retention a quality measure was also a mistake. It used to be schools bragged about how their degrees were hard and if someone graduated it proved they were a cut above.

[Ben_]

"What’s so bad about flunking 50% of freshmen?"

Do they intended to serve the students, or are they luring young people in to get a year’s worth of the student’s precious tuition cash? Half of their customers aren’t getting what they signed up and paid for.

[ducksalad]

"Half of their customers aren’t getting what they signed up and paid for."

There are the students that believe they paid for a passing grade, and they've been cheated if they don't get one. Then there are (somewhat) better ones who feel they paid for good teaching, and if they don't pass, the only possible explanation is that the teaching wasn't good.

The first group made a mistake, they wanted a diploma mill and signed up for a real college. I'll only consider a refund if the advertising and catalog said it was a diploma mill.

The second group isn't totally wrong since there are a lot of sucky professors out there. Overall though, I'd say those who suck by not teaching students and then failing them are vastly outnumbered by those who suck by not teaching and then passing everyone anyway.

luring young people in to get a year’s worth of the student’s precious tuition cash?

Can't deny this happens. I would say an honest approach would be to send students admission letters something like this: "It is our policy not to deny admission to students who have some chance of success. Based on your numerical qualifications and our own historical data, statistically you have a 30% chance of surviving your freshman year, a 25% chance of graduating in five years of enrollment, and an expected GPA of 2.65 with a standard deviation of 0.52 if you do graduate. Of course, individuals can fall above or below this range. We are offering you admission but it is your decision whether to accept the real risk of an unsuccessful outcome."

Note that this information is, by law, posted somewhere anyway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually it isnt and I wish it was. Yield would plummet but after the third suicide, this would blow up in your face. A public answers to the legislature.

[Ben_]

The students seem poorly served. That’s what’s wrong with flunking half of them.

An institution intending to serve students well would try to set them up for success.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“or are they luring young people in to get a year’s worth of the student’s precious tuition cash? Half of their customers aren’t getting what they signed up and paid for.”

It’s even more than that — if one student flunks out, you look at the student, when a LOT of them flunk out, you look at the school. After all, what would you say about a hospital that had a 50% mortality rate?

Now the UMass issue back in the ’90s involved very few of them actually flunking out, it was more that the cost of UMass more than tripled as Michael Dukakas’ economy imploded — most simply dropped out or transferred, and I mention flunking as just part of the definition of attrition. And I hope you can see how THAT was a problem.

But the larger issue is the student loans — you kinda know that they aren’t going to be repaid by kids who flunk out. How are they going to be able to? And if you get a reputation for being that kind of a school, high school teachers and guidance councilors are going to strongly discourage future students attending. So in a competitive market which higher education is today (it may not have been in the past), where supply now exceeds demand, you very quickly are going to wind up with an empty school.

I’ve been out of the Financial Aid world for years — but at one point, if a certain percentage of your students defaulted on their loans, you lost eligibility for your students to get loans — I know that Hampshire College ran into this when it almost went bankrupt the first time, and I’m not sure how it got resolved.

But there is the very real question of what are you taking student money for? If it’s like a crap game at a casino, there are very serious ethical questions.

One other thought: What constitutes legal malpractice? It's not losing a case, but it does exist -- and I think the same concept applies here. No, the students aren't entitled to good grades, but they *are* entitled to fair opportunity to earn them.

[Don Nico]

Ducksalad,
My high school did just as you said. Anyone in the city could attend. Anyone who survived the 9th grade (with only 4 academic courses) stayed. The fraction that stayed was one third. The other left to attend other schools.
Of those who stayed, 1/2 were from Jewish families, the other 1/2 were from immigrant families.
Actually the 1/2s were not quite that large, 10 % of those who stayed were from established Yankee families.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"To be fair, an antipathy for third-party candidates is the purview of both major political parties — which is why ballot-access laws in many states are a steep hill to climb for Libertarians, Greens, and others....

"But for Democrats to pass themselves off as caped defenders of democracy and the American Way while scheming to prevent voters from having additional choices is the height of hubristic hypocrisy.

"Progressives like to prattle on about voter “suppression.” What’s it called when you rig the game to make sure nobody else can get on the ballot?"

https://www.itemlive.com/2023/06/27/democrats-for-democracy-keeping-names-off-the-ballot/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave, you a DeSantis backer?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Since you ask, no.

Whom do you back? One of the duopoly parties?

[Magister]

What do you call it when the main backers of fringe candidates that might take votes from the Democratic candidate are Republican operatives or major donors? Kanye West, No Labels, and no doubt others. If McMullin in 2016 were placed on the ballot by demonstrably Democratic forces, then I would be equally aggrieved.

Ranked choice voting offers the best solution, outside of the jungle primary problem -- everyone can vote their dark horse candidate first, with their vote reassigned to their preferred candidate among those who can actually win.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What better incentive to enact one of those systems than some pro-ballot-access decisions from the courts?

The duopolists themselves created the “wasted vote” problem. If equal ballot access would upset their applecart, it will be up to them to adopt a jungle primary or ranked choice.

Also, with restrictive ballot access, who has more resources to divert votes with phony parties? The two big parties – they’re well funded and can create fake third parties on a whim, while *real* third parties, lacking that kind of money, lag behind.

[Magister]

Well, duh; no marginal third party is going to create more marginal third parties to suck off votes, because they're at a tiny fraction of what the major parties get. The phony parties and ghost candidates are only there to shave a few percentage points from the major party totals that are each near 50%.

Some states have implemented ranked choice voting, despite the stranglehold of the "duopoly". Some of them actually care that voters like it; more likely, they worry that vote splitting is going to hurt them, and the third party candidates who already got on the ballot and hurt them is probably more motivational than court cases.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It doesn’t look like you’re disagreeing with me, though perhaps you think you are.

“no marginal third party is going to create more marginal third parties to suck off votes”

I didn’t claim they might – I was comparing the phony third parties with the real third parties – the current system favors the phony ones at the expense of the real ones.

The two major parties create these problems – ballot access restrictions, first-past-the-post voting, phony third parties – then they turn around and say, “look, our bad behavior means ballot access should be restricted in our favor!”

[Magister]

So I guess you were saying that third parties lack the money to become real parties (compete with fake third parties)? I took your statement to mean that they lacked the money to create third parties, because it was right after you said the two parties have the money to create third parties and the third parties don't have that kind of money (that is, to create third parties). Seemed the most reasonable reading to me.

If real third parties can't distinguish themselves from fake third parties, that's the fault of disinformation, nobody knowing who to trust. The Republicans are more the ones doing more of that and the fake candidates/parties, because they don't respect their own supporters, let alone voters in general.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Seemed the most reasonable reading to me."

And I just explained that you were wrong.

"If real third parties can’t distinguish themselves from fake third parties"

No, try again: being a real third party does no good if you can't get the money to meet the obstacles to ballot access (especially the signature requirements). Under the *current* system, the duopolists can raise the money to help a third party, I'm simply suggesting that third parties should have ballot access even if they can't get a duopoly party to help them out.

[Magister]

I was politely explaining that what you wrote did not match what you meant. I will now be less generous: you are a dishonest clown who cannot express his thoughts properly.

Ballot access isn't that expensive; if a "real third party" can't manage that, they're not a real party.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"you are a dishonest clown who cannot express his thoughts properly"

I explained my remarks - in other words, I gave sufficient compensation for any previous lack of clarity (and to compound my offense, the supposed lack of clarity was on the Internet, of all places!).

If this makes you project your faults onto me, you can take a long walk off a short pier. I hope *that* was clear.

[Magister]

Yes, you are a dishonest clown. And provide nothing substantial here to respond to.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You falsely called me a Republican conspirator - indicating what you think about accuracy.

[Magister]

Another DancyGander calling people a liar when they judge their posts. You probably are dumb enough to engage in Republican advocacy without realizing it, though, so point for you!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I gave two alternative possibilities – (a) you’re projecting, or (b) you’re delusional.

"dumb enough to engage in Republican advocacy without realizing it"

Contrast this with your earlier accusation: "I have little doubt that your advocacy for the third case is an *intentional* bid for getting the Republicans to the first one." [emphasis added]

Pick a narrative and stick with it. If you insist on making stuff up at least make it consistent.

[Magister]

I change my mind based on changing evidence; you seem more stupid than evil, but I could be persuaded the other way.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You repudiated a position which you said you had “little doubt,” about - you painted yourself into a corner and then don't want anyone to notice all the paint you splashed on yourself walking away from your position.

[Magister]

Starting from your inability to express yourself clearly and given more evidence that you're stupid, yes, I abandoned the earlier position. Hot takes on a comment board, dude. Deal with it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, then, perhaps it displayed some...how shall I put it...lack of intelligence on your part to commit yourself so strongly ("I have little doubt") to your hot take, rather than prepare ground for a gracious retreat if it turned out (as you quickly discovered) that your position was wrong.

And what if the country gets a fair ballot and it turns out that the voters continue to support your precious duopoly even without your ballot-rigging? *That* would be an embarrassing mistake on your part, to have so rashly impugned the loyalty of your own supporters.

And if you *do* lose serious amounts of votes to third parties under a fair ballot? That would vindicate your prophecies of doom to your duopoly, and I'll play the world's smallest violin for you.

[ducksalad]

What do you call it when the main backers of fringe candidates that might take votes from the Democratic candidate are Republican operatives or major donors?

I call it “democracy in action”.

First, there is no such thing as “taking” votes. Democratic candidates do not own anybody’s vote. If they believe they do it’s sufficient reason to vote against them.

Second, trying to persuade Dem voters to vote for someone else is a supremely valid and perfectly normal thing for your opponents to do. It’s an inherent and completely ethical part of any election campaign in a democracy.

Third, do you have so little faith in the intelligence and judgment of Democratic voters, and so little confidence in the ability of Democratic candidates to make their case, that you think they’ll be taken in by “fringe” candidates? (Well, maybe your fears are justified.)

Fourth, whatever money Republicans spend on funding third party candidates is not spent on their own candidates. Shifting a D to a G is +1 vote advantage, shifting a D to an R is +2 votes advantage. Unless you think it is twice as cheap and easy to get people to switch D to G (which again would say something about the Democratic party), you ought to *hope* that Republicans blow their money on this.

Fifth, while I think RCV is great on its own merits, people voting for a third party is not a problem and therefore there is no urgent need for a solution.

Sixth, if you were writing the laws, how would you legally define “those who can win” prior to holding a vote? You do see the problem with saying only parties that won in the past are allowed to compete in the future, right?

[Magister]

I'd like it to simply be revealed; ghost candidates have been prosecuted after the fact, but it's too late to get the election result that voters wanted (see George Santos lies for another example). No Labels pretends to be all not-Republican but it's run by Republicans. The solution is not to criminalize their dishonesty but to reveal it with more speech; the Democratic party is the more frequent victim and should be promulgating the truth (see failure to reveal George Santos lies in advance of the election).

An individual's vote has little impact; while some people spend a lot of time on politics, many voters ignore it until late in the game. The last two presidential elections swung on something on the order of 100K votes (in the right states); if one party uses all the dirty tricks they could easily swing the few votes needed to change the result. You have so little respect for the Republican party's ideas that you think they need tricks, some of them criminal.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"the Democratic party is the more frequent victim and should be promulgating the truth"

Both wings of the duopoly are "victims" of third parties trying to compete with them, and both duopolist parties want to protect themselves from competition by restricting ballot access.

Why not make things even simpler by having only *one* party (the good party, of course) on the ballot?

[Magister]

Oh, so you're advocating for the autocratic desires of the current Republican party.

If there are two or more parties, then each is a check on the other, setting ambition against ambition. At least until Republicans use gerrymandering, vote suppression and outright cheating to eliminate all opposition.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Oh, so you’re advocating for the autocratic desires of the current Republican party.”

They don’t want ballot access for their rivals. Have you started the July 4 celebrations a little too early?

[Magister]

I can't blame Democrats for not surrendering to Republican autocracy by principled defense of third parties. Lots of people who disagree with the Democratic platform voted for Biden. You want the perfect that is the enemy of the good. There are three equilibria possible: one party rule, our present two party system, and a very large number of parties of small, balanced size. Tyrannies get the first one, the US has had the second almost from the get go, and parliamentary systems sometimes manage the third one, which is not a stable equilibrium.

I have little doubt that your advocacy for the third case is an intentional bid for getting the Republicans to the first one. There are good ways forward, like ranked choice voting, and bad ways forward, like having no cost to put a thousand candidates on the ballot named James R. Biden, Joseph P. Biden, Joseph R. Bidem and so forth, to create confusion and advantage for people who are already abusing the voting process on both sides of the legal line.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“I have little doubt that” [ridiculous accusation omitted]

And I have little doubt that you’re utterly full of crap.

Your paranoid fantasy is not based on any reality. Perhaps the reality is that you yourself have authoritarian preferences and wish to project these onto me.

Or if I want to be charitable, perhaps your delusional state is because you’ve clouded your mind by smoking a lot of weed, which I hope is grown in the USA, befitting the holiday.

[Magister]

Actual Republican party operatives trying to get Kanye West on the ballot? Republican donors backing No Labels? Putting forward ghost candidates? Gerrymandering? Voter suppression? Independent state legislature theory? January 6th insurrection?

Rather than deal with any of these actual issues or pursuing something that might actually help third parties like ranked choice voting, you spend your time bemoaning that there's some standard to get on the ballot for third parties, which would demonstrably empower Republican dirty tricks. Either you want those dirty tricks or you're too dumb to realize the consequences of what you advocate. Either way, you're not in any way qualified to judge anyone as deluded.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Rather than deal with any of these actual issues or pursuing something that might actually help third parties like ranked choice voting”

You acknowledge that ranked choice voting would solve the so-called stolen vote problem – of course, you claim a monopoly on that insight.

Put the bong down!

I said that the duopolists (including the Dems) created the first-past-the post system, and they can abolish it.

*Some* Democrats want to belatedly change the FPTP system which *they* helped establish in the first place. But it was you guys – the duopolists – who created that system which you now whine about. Don’t blame the ballot-access advocates, plenty of whom want to end FPTP anyway.

[Magister]

You're still deluded that just creating free ballot access would fix anything. Ranked choice voting would help; putting the entire population of a state on the ballot because there's no standard except an individual's own sense of restraint would not help, and it would create new opportunities for dirty tricks (which are mostly done by Republicans).

Are you a Republican shill, or just a useful idiot for Republicans? Dishonest or stupid, and maybe both.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“putting the entire population of a state on the ballot because there’s no standard except an individual’s own sense of restraintf”

But enough about the “jungle primary” installed by you guys in California. Which might even work if

-it was a general election, not a primary, and

-Candidates’ party endorsements could be clearly indicated.

I’ve suggested this before, incidentally.

You referred to the jungle primary, saying it had an unspecified “problem,” but you curiously omitted to mention that any supposed “problem” is on the duopoly of which you are a proud partisan.

As for ballot access rules in most states: you think you can jump into bed with the Republicans and impose ballot access restrictions, then (from your side of the bed) accuse other people of being Republican shills.

[Magister]

OK, you've descended into paranoia.

There needs to be some standard for getting on the ballot, or ballots could have a million names. But I've encountered many third party candidates on my ballots over decades of voting, so it's not impossible to qualify.

I've never jumped into bed with Republicans* on any ballot access or voting rights issue. [* not committing on the question of bedding particular Republicans if they were very hot and I could rationalize that I was influencing them away from their toxic party affiliation.]

It's stupid to blame Democrats of today for something Democrats established a century or more ago. And don't blame me for things in states I've never been to.

The jungle primary has the problem that you get two candidates in a run off who may together represent a tiny fraction of the primary vote. In California, you could get two Democrats in the general election. I don't think that's a great system. Translating it into the general election seems dramatically worse, because there's one winner who may be popular with a minority of the voters. It is up to the parties to educate their voters not to split their votes, so that if you do get two Democrats it's because the Republicans were less than a third of the voters or couldn't get behind one candidate (Republicans in disarray).

Ranked choice voting does have an issue with more than 2 candidates. Suppose A gets 20% while B and C get 40% each in the first round of vote counting; A is eliminated and one of B or C gets votes from the 20% based on their second choice, and say B gets over 50% at that point. But if the C voters all had A as their second choice and B as third choice, then 60% of voters would prefer A to B.

I live in the real world where despite the duopoly, presidents don't always win popular votes, and even when they have their victory might have been because of a third party candidate. So the possibility that ranked voting would turn out badly in some cases is not a deal breaker. It would solve the "well, I don't want to waste my vote" problem for third parties, and then it would be entirely on them to get enough first round votes to matter. You seem to want them to succeed without having to do the work - even to get on the ballot in the current system - which is still not going to help them with the "well, I don't want to waste my vote" problem.

You'd get a lot farther with just advocating ranked voting, which exists in some places, rather than endlessly railing against the evil duopoly, which presents nothing actionable and makes you look like a crank (who's helping the Republicans).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You’ve demoted me from evil Republican operative to paranoid “crank” who unintentionally helps the evil Republicans.

The second accusation is as plausible as the first.

But I’m promoting you to a rabid and unthinking partisan of the Democratic wing of the duopoly – yet one who seems unwilling to defend Democratic policies.

You Democrats (plural “you”) admittedly helped create FPTP, but it’s not just something from 100 years ago – you should acknowledge that both parties until quite recently have perpetuated it, while combining it with unfair ballot access rules. So, yes, you can jolly well take ownership of these problems. The fact that you suddenly realize that the monster you created might turn on the Democratic wing of the duopoly doesn’t absolve you.

You think your old FPTP policy would harm the Democratic wing of the duopoly if combined with fair ballot access - or even under the without fair ballot access, it seems. Well then, Dr. Frankenstein, kill your own monster – the FPTP system. But don’t block fair ballot access simply because of your own mistake with FPTP.

If the threat from the duopoly’s Republican wing is so serious, then swallow hard and take an alternative voting system which would at least counteract Republican dirty tricks as you perceive them.

[Magister]

You're changing your view on me? Nope, that is not allowed under the Margrave Mandate that all previous judgements are final and you're only allowed one narrative, ever.

I prefer the Democrats, but would really prefer a viable party farther to the left. So I don't defend their policies; some I like, most don't go far enough, some are wrong. But smashing the current system, even with a time machine, would just invite more abuse (mostly from the Republicans -- do you really dispute the history of the past five decades? -- but, yes, also from Democrats who are not perfect) and won't create any new viable parties. You're tilting at windmills.

There are other problems that existed long before I was born, or even before either modern party, really. I'm not interested in breaking everything else in an attempt to fix, say, the electoral college. We can discuss that or other issues in the coming Thursday open thread, if you want, or even this weird obsession of yours.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So allowing fair ballot access would simultaneously be “smashing the current system” *and* “won’t create any new viable parties”?

This time you haven’t simply changed your mind from one post to the next, you have changed your mind in the midst of writing a single post.

Again, pick a story and stick with it. If fair ballot access is useless and won’t create new viable parties, how can it “smash[] the current system”?

Or perhaps you have found a loophole in that pesky law of non-contradiction.

Or perhaps we can leave it to the voters to decide which parties should be viable. If they're disposed to stick with the duopoly parties, you guys in the duopoly will be kicking yourselves for all that effort you wasted in rigging the system, and in warning about the apocalyptic disasters which would befall if the ballots were fair.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I am still enmeshed with a relative involved in a controversy with his bank’s credit card company. Based on facts easy to prove from bank statements, emails, and snail mail, the bank took actions which destroyed my relative’s previously-excellent credit rating.

The case generated a compliance review in the bank chairman’s office, which concluded that no bank error had occurred, so my relative has no recourse. Here are some of the various errors the bank did make, which apparently do not meet the technical standard for, “bank error”:

– The bank used a computer system which accepted an obviously erroneously entered account ID number (too many digits) without any indication that anything was wrong. On that basis the bank’s system credited my relative with a payment which would have brought the account balance to zero, which was the intended result.

– Many days later, the payment was reversed, apparently by an automated process, and a balance adjustment applied, leaving the previously slightly overdue balance still unpaid.

– Notice of the payment reversal was mailed by snail mail, but to a long-superseded former address, from which it was returned to the bank as undeliverable. The bank had for other purposes been communicating by mail with my relative’s correct address for years.

– Not knowing of the returned snail mail, and getting a repeat email notice from the bank to say that the account was still (now unaccountably) overdue, my relative promptly sought help from a bank customer service employee. That employee failed to detect the cause of the problem, or even that there was a problem. Thus, another attempt followed, mediated by the customer service employee, in a repeated attempt to pay the balance in full.

– In response to that attempted payment, the bank’s payments system substituted from stored data the incorrect payment account number which had initiated the original problem. The entire process was repeated—payment accepted; days pass; payment reversed; another notification by snail mail sent to the wrong address; another return of the reversal notification mail as undeliverable, despite the fact that the bank for years had and used my relative’s correct current address.

– When yet another email notice reported the balance still unpaid, my relative again sought the assistance of a bank customer service rep, who this time did succeed in getting the payment made, bringing the account balance to zero. That credit occurred—and was confirmed by email—on the 29th day post the original payment becoming overdue, one day prior to the customary interval used to report accounts as delinquent.

– Apparently, the bank had on that same day, either prior to the successful payment which brought the account to zero, or afterward, reported my relative’s account to credit rating agencies as delinquent. That action—one day before the customary delinquency date—knocked the relative’s years-long strong credit rating down to the 400 range. Both job promotion prospects and necessary rental housing applications have been shut down as a result. Unfortunately, my relative had given notice, declining to renew a current lease a few weeks before this sequence began.

– Two months of fruitless protest to various bank officers, and attempted explanations, finally got the attention of the bank chairman’s office, which initiated a compliance review. That process was predicted to require 30 days to complete; my relative would get no participation, not even a chance to present the evidence from the bank’s own records which showed what had happened.

– Nearly 60 days later, after hearing nothing, my relative telephoned the chairman’s office to ask when the review would be completed. My relative learned that the review had been completed on time, and that notification had been mailed, saying that no bank error had been found, so there would be no recourse or bank action to correct the credit score. That notification too was mailed to the wrong address, and had never been properly delivered.

Now, about 10 days after informing the bank that notice had not arrived, my relative is still awaiting notice of the results of the compliance review.

I am not a lawyer. Everything I have been able to find online suggests that the legal system gives the bank impunity to inflict this kind of damage, without any kind of recourse for the victim. It is an astonishingly irrational and unjust conclusion, so I wonder if I have overlooked something. Any suggestions greatly appreciated. This has all been happening in Massachusetts. Attempts to appeal to the usual suspects among government officials have been unavailing.

[defaultdotxbe]

It also seems unusual that a single 30-day late payment would take someone's credit score from excellent (750+) down to the 400 range. I wonder if they are further reducing the score for each failed attempt at payment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was thinking either that or that there were other things that the relative hadn’t been mentioned.

If they lower it to 400 for just one late repayment, what can they lower it to for all the people who are 3 months or more late with auto loans? What’s a repo get you — negative numbers?

IANAA but I would get actual copies of my three credit reports.

And as to the larger issue, the Boston Herald likes stuff like this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh, and than Brandon for the credit card laws.

Remember he was Senator from Delaware, and before he sold us out to the ChiComs, he sold us out to....

[Stephen Lathrop]

Good thought. That had seemed mysterious, so it's worth exploring.

[darkknight9]

This may not help at all, and I wish I could remember the name of the governmental office but...

Back in 2010 A bank that I had an account with (but only had the $5 in it necessary to keep it open) when the bank decided to close all accounts that hadn't been used in over a year.

And charge the customer $25 to close it. And yes, continue to accrue interest against the account if it wasn't paid. After arguing with them for 2 weeks I found a fed office online that supervised banks (possibly had some version of the word ombudsman in it). I've tried digging through my old emails to find it but I haven't yet, nor have I been able to remember. The only thing I strongly remember was the conclusion. I submitted my complaint online Monday evening and by Friday snail mail I had a statement from the bank that the account was closed and no money was owed by me.

I think the help might be out there, and I'm sorry I can't remember who it was I complained to. 🙁

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks or that. I'll look around. Does Comptroller of the Currency ring any bells?

[darkknight9]

10 State AGs are suing the EPA over wood stoves but I can't find anywhere if they are suing for specific updating requirements or if they're just suing so that the EPA does better.

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/epa-sued-10-states-ineffective-wood-stove-emissions

[darkknight9]

Thank you! ????

[darkknight9]

not ??? just 🙂

[Michael Ejercito]

I read in the comments about State v Sum, but was unable to coment because I was on vacation.

Here is the most problematic passage in Sum.

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf

Thus, holding that a person’s race and ethnicity are irrelevant unless the
person produces statistics showing a pattern of targeted police discrimination or
violence would reinforce the same systemic inequalities that prevent such statistics
from being reliably compiled in the first instance. History has shown that when
courts create “‘crippling’” legal burdens to recognizing the constitutional rights of
BIPOC, their lived experiences are unjustly disregarded and their rights go
unprotected. Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d at 240 (Gordon McCloud, J., lead opinion)
(quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 92). We decline the invitation to impose such
burdens here.</blockquote.

the burden here is the traditional burden of civil litigation.

[darkknight9]

[John F. Carr]

Political fundraising fraud is in the air this week.

Trump's people are being investigated for possibly lying when begging for money to win back the STOLEN ELECTION! I gather fundraising in a doomed attempt to sue, sue, and sue again is legal, but if the money was intended to be diverted elsewhere or if they subjectively knew the case was a loser, they could be in trouble.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote an op-ed on a common kind of fundraising fraud, the promise that your donation will be matched, doubled, or even matched 1500%. "With millions of match solicitations hitting inboxes daily, have you ever wondered who’s matching your contribution? In virtually every case, nobody is. It’s a scam." He says his office will start taking action. I hope so.

[SRG]

FWIW I wrote an as-yet unperformed play about a governor who raises large amounts of money for his re-election and then deliberately sabotages his re-election so that he can run off with the contributions.

[Sarcastr0]

The Producers 2: Politics?

[David Nieporent]

.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sounds like you plagiarized the plot of "The Producers" -- aka "Springtime for Hitler' -- they made a play praising Hitler, and this was in the 1970s with real WWII vets in the audience -- figuring that it would bomb and they could keep the money. Except that it became a wildly popular parody and they wound up in jail.

As to Governor's, Charlie Baker accepted campaign contributions before announcing that he would not run for a 3rd Term. See: https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/07/04/charlie-baker-resumes-fundraising-still-no-word-on-third-term/

[SRG]

I know the film well. But the theft is the McGuffin, The play is more about the nature of politics and media

[Moderation4ever]

Political fund raising seems to be one of the last avenues for legitimate graft. People seem to be willing to give to candidates without any demand for accountability. I don't really think there is any legal recourse or remedy, and I would suggest that people need to use good judgment when making political donations. Canidates will appeal to the emotional and people need to stop for a reality check before giving.

[John F. Carr]

If a candidate says "vote for me because my opponent will start a nuclear war", that is protected hyperbole. If a campaign says "your $500 donation will be matched 15x" and there is no source of matching funds, that is fraud.

Speaking of fundraising fraud, Steve Bannon's New York trial for the border wall scam is now scheduled for May, 2024. He got a six month delay by switching to a new legal team and asking for time to review 32 terabytes of discovery material.

[Magister]

Maybe they mean it will be matched by the 15 other suckers who fell for that scam.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I don't understand is that Bannon isn't stupid, and he worked on Wall Street or something like that at one point.

So, if he really did what he is accused of -- and under this DoJ, nothing is trustworthy at first glance -- did he really think he would get away with it?

It's sad to have to add that caveat, but I think it's necessary.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sounds like the NRA.

Isn't there anyone honest on our side anymore?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do the people in government get to cause so much harm and then get rewarded for it?

Take for example the student loan crisis. The people in government created the system, they execute the system, they caused all this suffering, and then to solve this crisis, they get someone else to pay for it, the future taxpayer, while they get all the accolades.

Why aren’t they held accountable for the suffering they caused?

Consider this second example. The people in government created a systemically and institutionally racist system. They manage and execute the system and then they blame innocent White civilians for all the harm they cause and they continue to cause and demand the White citizen suffer and pay the consequences. Why aren't the people in government held accountable for the racist systems they create and operate?

Consider this third example. The people in government control through direct spending or regulatory requirements nearly 70% of all US healthcare. On par with European countries. The US healthcare system causes so much suffering and pain and yet the people in government are held accountable for the system they control and regulate. Instead, they demand the citizen suffer even more so they can take control over all our healthcare. They get rewarded with the ultimate power and control over every citizen for causing our healthcare system to be so bad.

Why aren’t they held accountable?

Take a fourth example. The Federal class now spends $6-7T a year on the Federal Government. Way above what the tax base can reasonably support. So instead of them finding efficiencies, cutting waste, reducing bloated salaries, they demand everyone else suffer more taxation and then if they ever reduce the deficit by taking from us, they want all the accolades. They created the spending, they created the problem, they get awarded by taking more of our freedom and wealth and we suffer.

When are they ever held to account or asked to suffer on their own behalf?

The Federal Class no longer serves us. That role has been reversed, and we serve the Federal Class.

[David Nieporent]

This is pretty much, "The government does stuff I don't like. Why isn't that illegal?"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Clearly I was talking about accountability, not legality.

Don't be so rude.

[defaultdotxbe]

Because people only have a 2 foot sight distance when it comes to government action. As Queenie says subsidized loans are popular, but people don't consider the consequences. When the consequences do come up those in power are very practiced at deflecting blame. The people are fooled and fail to hold to hold anyone to account.

[David Nieporent]

No, it wasn't clear, and it doesn't become any more coherent interpreting it that way. "The government was giving voters what they wanted. Why aren't voters upset about that?"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The voters wanted this student loan crisis?

[Voize]

Why aren’t they held accountable?

They are, every election. Your vote for somebody else is the accountability you get to deliver personally.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's wishful thinking.

We have incumbency rates that would make Saddam blush and further the elected officials have spent decades outsourcing their constitutional responsibility to unelected bureaucrats so they could always have a foil on the campaign trail.

[Moderation4ever]

The main drivers for incumbency are gerrymandering and unlimited campaign funds. These are two things that bother the majority of people and yet there is nothing that can be done because the politicians want to keep their jobs.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is racial gerrymandering bad?

And think about the campaign finance stuff, you want to give these corrupt politicians who are too easily controlled by spending the power to control spending.

Again their failures result in them getting more power and control.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think you would need racial gerrymandering if you did not already have political gerrymandering.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A look at the racially gerrymandered maps would tell you that simply isn't true.

[Moderation4ever]

A look at some of the politically gerrymandered districts would suggest that I am right. Cracking and packing is not pretty whether it is done for racial or political reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

I dunno, you have some states doing redistricting commissions via various nonpartisan means. More each cycle.
It's slow, but the will of the people is working.

[ducksalad]

1. Redistricting commission.
2. ???
3. No more student loan crises!

I know there's a remotely plausible link between the two but remotely plausible is the best you could say for it. Congress has changed hands multiple times in recent memory, so clearly gerrymandering isn't preventing us from electing different people if we collectively wanted to.

[Sarcastr0]

I was replying to: "The main drivers for incumbency are gerrymandering and unlimited campaign funds. These are two things that bother the majority of people and yet there is nothing that can be done because the politicians want to keep their jobs."

I don't care what BCD says - he just says stuff to get negative attention a lot of the time.

[ducksalad]

“unlimited campaign funds…..bother the majority of people”

There’s a tiny bit of elitism inherent in this that always amuses me. Were you, Modertation4ever, forced by campaign spending to change your vote against your will? I assume not. No, you’re worried about those other ignorant sheeple, perhaps not as informed as yourself, who were swayed by all the advertisements.

As a practical matter you’re probably right but it’s curious to base policy in a democracy on the idea that the voters are stupid.

[Moderation4ever]

Part of the problem is the flood of advertising. Another is that the candidate with big cash reserve can scare away competition. People who might challenge an incumbent will just walk away if the opponent's war chest id just too big.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not to mention that the purpose of a lot of the campaign support cash is to buy preferred policy from an elected incumbent. The record showing congressional voting patterns in alignment with donors, and in defiance of popular majorities is unmistakable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back in the '80s, Bill Bennett warned about the consequences of the then-new student loans. And he was right, college costs skyrocketed.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Proponents of affirmative action before the decision and even during argument before the SC “they’re barely using AA anyway”.

Proponents of AA after the decision “this decision will cripple the ability of minorities to go to college!!!”

No intent to get into the issue here, but just posted the juxtaposition to ask if anyone in public leadership actually gives a shit about their credibility any more.

[Michael Ejercito]

To be fair, ending Jim Crow crippled the ability of many White students to gbo to college, and reduce white enrollment in public universities.

Was this a bad thing?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog of White Grievance.

Carry on, bigoted clingers. The Volokh Conspirators will show you the way.

[Michael P]

Did it really? I presume Jim Crow did impose unfair burdens on students of color in the South, but how much did that help white students? A smaller fraction of people went to college then, and whites were more of a majority then than now, so I would be surprised if the seats mis-allocated due to Jim Crow counted as "many" -- if the 1960s even ended that very quickly. Wouldn't coed admissions have had a much bigger effect?

[bernard11]

How did it do that?

Are you arguing that because there were only a limited number of spots the fact that some now went to Black applicants reduced the number of white applicants admitted?

If so, what problem do you see?

[Dr. Ed 2]

NO — In North Carolina in 1960, something like 36% of White males had a high school diploma.. Or something like that — its a footnote in the Gregg decision.

[Sarcastr0]

Proponents of AA after the decision “this decision will cripple the ability of minorities to go to college!!!”

Who is saying this?

[Michael Ejercito]

If you look at history, ending Jim Crow reduced White enrollment in universities.

so this argument is plausible.

[not guilty]

“If you look at history, ending Jim Crow reduced White enrollment in universities.”

Are you sure about that? My recollection is that the states where Jim Crow had been in force had maintained dual systems of higher education, black and white, and left the historically black colleges and universities open — available to black and white students alike — when de jure segregation was outlawed. The end of Jim Crow thus expanded the educational institutions to which white students could apply.

Desegregation also overlapped with the expansion of the military draft, which led to a significant increase in college and university enrollment during that time.

Where are you getting your facts?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It wasn't just the draft but also _Power Systems v. Gregg_ -- and the EEOC then ruling that all management exams were racist, but companies could instead require a BA/BS because there were HBCUs.

Post 1971, when the draft essentially ended, THIS was what increased college enrollment exponentially, with related massive expansions of HWCUs -- the HBCUs struggled and shifted more toward being community colleges that offered 4 year degrees.

I can understand their market -- I saw the same thing with White kids in rural Maine. The girl from Beal's Island who was overwhelmed by the massive University of Maine at Machias, with it's 300 FTE students and six buildings on campus -- I can only imagine how she'd have done at UMass with 300-500 students in lecture classes and 500-600 in physical dormitories.

But ending segregation did the same thing to the HBCUs that it did to the Negro Baseball League -- most of the good students, who would have gone to a HBCU, were now accepted at a HWCU and went there instead. The problem has always been a shortage of qualified Black applicants, not a willingness of the HWCUs to admit them, particularly with Federal judges looking over their shoulder.

With the end of segregation, there was NOT a rush of White HBCUs, which were considered to be inferior and in many ways were, particularly in terms of facilities. Only now are their nurturing aspects coming out, along with *now* an concentrated effort to recruit White students -- for two basic reasons: (a) fill the seats, and (b) raise retention and graduation rates. A changing social attitude toward race -- at least Pre Obama -- helped immensely here.

[David Nieporent]

Griggs v. Duke Power is not, the careful reader might note, the same as "Power Systems v. Gregg."

It was not an EEOC ruling at all, and there was no EEOC ruling that "all management exams were racist." Nor was there any ruling that relied on the existence of HBCU.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We are both wrong — I am on the name of the case but you are in that the EEOC rulings FOLLOWED THE DECISION. Like over the next decade or so.

And the EEOC ruling involved disparate impact, which all the management exams had.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael Ejercito. Where are you getting your facts?

[Don Nico]

That certainly did NOT happen for Hispanic students in CA after the 1996 CA amendment to ban racial preferences

[Dr. Ed 2]

You presume anyone has the attention span to call them on it.

[bernard11]

Maybe you could provide some actual quotes. Like, more than one.

[Randal]

Those are just the voices in your head again.

[Longtobefree]

Funny how the same group(s) that rabidly want the rich to 'pay their fair share' also want the government to hand those same rich loan forgiveness.

[John F. Carr]

The line between "middle class" and "rich" is very flexible. When a politician is talking you are middle class and he is rich. (And I was born a poor black child, I feel your pain, etc.)

[Sarcastr0]

The rich don't need education loans.

[Michael Ejercito]

And what did these people do to deserve their loans to be forgiven?

Alternatively, what was done to them to deserve their loans to be forgiven?

[Ed Grinberg]

what did these people do to deserve their loans to be forgiven?

No, no, no! It's "to each according to his needs"! Get with the program!

[Michael P]

There's an old jibe that the only way to get a loan from the bank is to prove you don't need one.

And there's an old joke that a rich woman went to the bank in NYC and asked for a $5,000 loan to pay for a vacation. The loan officer asked if she was willing to provide collateral, and she offered her Rolls Royce. He checked everything closely, and approved the loan after everything she said seemed true and they drove her limo into the basement. Two weeks later, she came back and repaid the loan in full. The manager said that based on the bank's research, she didn't need the loan -- so why did she come to them? Her answer: "I don't know anywhere else I can park my car in this city for two weeks for $54 and be sure it will be there when I return."

Which is a long way of saying that the rich will take loans when it's economically advantageous, not only when it's the only way to pay for a thing.

[Sarcastr0]

First, this is a good response. Thanks for not calling me a Marxist!

My favorite story on that front is the Ghost Busses of Friendship Heights. One of the richest neighborhoods in DC, no one takes the bus. But the people there use their influence to insist (and, to be fair, support) bus service just so they 'have the option just in case.' And thus you have empty busses going up and down the area all times of day.

That being said, I disagree as applied to loans. Even assuming that loans are somehow convenient or advantageous, humans are not economically optimizing beings.
No one likes educational debt;
The really well off folks I met in school (and I want to lots of school) were all planning on coming out debt-free. But most folks were not that well off, especially given prices even back then.

[bernard11]

I don't fully agree.

I recall seeing articles recommending educational loans just because they were low-interest. (I don't know what the rates are now, but there was a time when they were low.)

Also, wealthy people do in fact sometimes take out mortgages when they could pay cash.

[Sarcastr0]

Low interest is not no interest; I don’t believe the interest is low enough that other safe investments outstrip their interest rate – I checked back in the day. (though rates do fluctuate; it's not a ridiculous scenario)

Mortgages are a liquidity thing. Education does not contain equity. So I'm not sure I buy that analogy.

It’s all feelings and reasoning, so who is to say. There may be a stat somewhere, but I doubt any of us knows where.

[Magister]

In the late 70s, student loan interest rates (at least some of them) were quite low, and various bank accounts paid higher interest. I heard when I was an undergraduate that some well off students took such loans they didn't need and put the funds in money market accounts; but I cannot confirm that this was more than rumor.

By the end of my undergraduate days, student loans shifted to rather steep interest rates.

[ducksalad]

Could (in a stretch) have bought my house for cash. But then I wouldn't have any cash in case of emergency. You know, like having to leave the country on the run with nothing but a suitcase and a debit card.

Cash spent on a giant tuition bill is even more inaccessible then cash spent on a house.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, between bernard and Magister and ducksalad, I think I have the wrong end of the stick.

Not that I'm too mad about loan forgiveness going to the wealthy as it goes to the more needy still, but I do see how even the very wealthy would find it advantageous to take on some educational debt. And probably plenty do so.

[Magister]

Well, they could do full forgiveness amount for anyone at or below median income, and phase it out as your income rises, so nobody more than whatever income gets any. Or other things to address various complaints. But any complicated system is going to piss somebody off, especially when there are people who are paid to be pissed off.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rich neighborhoods in and around DC rely heavily on domestic help which arrives on the bus. Not saying that applies to Friendship Heights, but it would be one of the first things to think of.

[Michael P]

Friendship Heights also has a significant shopping area along Wisconsin Ave (which is presumably where the buses run). It used to be bigger, but Lord & Taylor and Nieman Marcus closed a few years ago. Walter Reed and Bethesda are just a bit farther up Wisconsin -- there are plenty of places that buses could legitimately serve on both sides of Friendship Heights.

[Magister]

I would echo the point about busing in the domestic help; rich suburbs around St. Louis had daytime bus service but rolled up the sidewalks at night.

Nobody shopping at Nieman Marcus is going to take a bus; I would have expected the employees not to either, but in any event not that numerous. But the hospital makes sense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Retail has a very high employee headcount as few are working full time.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The rich" an undefined word, but generally anyone with more money than the person speaking.

[Magister]

It can be somewhat nebulous, in that it might mean the top 1%, the top 0.1%, the top 5%, millionaires, billionaires, or something else specific in context. Plenty of people who are not rich make more money than me, and I expect that is true for any clearly non-rich person who talks about the rich.

[Don Nico]

Are you for real.
Who are you defining as rich? If you mean families with >$5M income per year, I agree with you.
But, if you can afford to pay $100K peer year for each of two kids simultaneously in university on your government salary, you must be selling dope on the side.

[Sarcastr0]

Your ignoring of savings and relying entirely on income seems quite an oversight.

Above I have been convinced the rich like and use loans. But need? You'll need more than this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Funny how right-wing knuckle-draggers from our can't-keep-up conservative backwaters, parasites who are subsidized by better Americans in many ways, complain incessantly about how they figure other people's (taxpayers') money is being improperly spent.

[EscherEnigma]

Eh. The income cap was 125k (for single-filers). That's middle-class, not rich, even in podunk-nowhere-Alabama.

Could they have put it lower? Sure. They probably could have dropped it into the high five-digits and not upset too many people.

That said, and this is going extremely cynical... I don't think Biden's admin ever expected it to go through. So since it's basically a stunt, may as well go big, right?

[Don Nico]

"So since it’s basically a stunt, may as well go big, right?"
Exactly

[Michael Ejercito]

What was the rationale for affirmative action to benefit Latinos, but not Slavs or Greeks?

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, it's not like Slavs ever suffered anything like slavery ... no, wait...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave#word-history

[Frank Drackman]

Or Lefthanders (We Prefer "Persons of Southpaw-ness) who face actual discrimination in fields as varied as Neurosurgery to MLB Shortstops (no matter how skilled they may be, Lefties are shunted away from 1/2 of the field positions, (more like 2/3 when you consider "Outfield" is at best 2 positions)
At least with AlGore inventing the Internet's todays Screw-dents don't have to take tests at those awful desks built for the Oppressive North-paw majority,

Frank "Lefty"

[ducksalad]

MLB is your example? MLB is the one field where left-handers are vastly overrepresented.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, pitching, first base, outfield, it's like saying His-Spanics are "Overrepresented" in lawn care.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"MLB is the one field where left-handers are vastly overrepresented."

Also, so it seems, American presidents.

[Nige]

I bet this sounded clever on whatever fever swamp chan-lite corner of the internet you cribbed it from.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is clever.

[Nige]

Yes, dear, now eat your spinach.

[ducksalad]

Actually knew someone who filed an employment discrimination complaint based on being Greek.

He lost.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

People of Greek descent can be Black.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27528139/

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news.

Hazardous substance causes evacuation of White House.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/07/03/wheres-hunter-white-house-evacuated-after-cocaine-found-n1707971

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fairness, it was right to err on the side of caution until they knew WHAT it was -- it could have been Anthrax. Presume the worst until you know otherwise, it saves lives.

The interesting question is WHOSE it was -- isn't everyone's fingerprints on file? So which staffer has fingerprints on it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Presumably the First 'staffer', who was just recently visiting.

[gVOR08]

Reading the link, even though it’s PJ Media one finds it was in a package “near” the White House. So you leap to Hunter Biden, no other possible explanation.

PJ tries to make a thing out of others not reporting the story. Has to be a conspiracy. Couldn’t possibly be because it’s a nothingburger.

[Mr. Bumble]

"So you leap to Hunter Biden, no other possible explanation. "
Who did?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Who did?"

Whoever created the headline at the site you linked and our boy Brettmore for two.

And, can you give an authoritative reference to the claim that the White House was evacuated? It's not clear to me where the "cocaine" was found nor exactly what part of the White House grounds was evacuated.

[I Callahan]

Are any other White House staffers known for past cocaine use? Was Hunter just there at the White House?

I'd call it power of deduction.

Geez, the progressives on this board are so sensitive...

[StellaLink_the dog]

“So you leap to Hunter Biden, no other possible explanation. ”
"Who did?"

And, Baby Boy makes three.

[Mr. Bumble]

Found in the residence portion of the WH.

[EscherEnigma]

As an aside, anyone else catch that DeSantis ad they put out over the weekend? You know, the one where they showed a clip of Trump talking about defending the LGBT community after the Pulse shooting. I.e., literally defending from violence. And the ad portrayed Trump's commitment as a bad thing.

If taken at face value, the ad is saying that DeSantis, as president, would not be interested in protecting a disfavored minority from domestic terrorism.

More favorably, you could say that whoever was responsible for that ad is just an idiot who thought "gays scary, let's grab every nice thing Trump ever said about them" and didn't think folks would remember the context.

I suppose we'll have to see if DeSantis makes a comment. My weak prediction is that he'll say nothing and lash out at any reporter who asks him about it.
________
†I might take it as a fiver bet, but probably not more then that.

[Sarcastr0]

This is what GOP politics is selecting for. You can't be a more effective, boring Trump like DeSantis originally tried - at some point you need to point out how ineffective Trump is, and at that point your approval will crater.

So you gotta go to Trump's right. No need to directly criticize Trump, just note his positions and then set out to his right.

Now, to Trump's right is fucking crazytown. While a lot of it lives in crazytown, there's a decent chance the GOP base will balk at a lot of these positions. But that's the only place left with some potential daylight if you're going to run against Trump.

If I were running for office, and had no dignity, it's where I would go.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah man, the GOP has a problem.

As do the other parties. The public is begging for something better than 31% Trump and 31% Biden. Begging. Screaming the message in poll after poll. And the two ethically and intellectually bankrupt parties we’ve got just can’t do it.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh good lord. I'm not talking about public support for party leadership.

Quit trying to make this a bothsides thing.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You talked about what GOP politics is “selecting for”. I mention that Democratic politics is not selecting any better, you throw a hissy fit. The delusion that there’s only one fucked up party here is important to you. Too bad it’s bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

Nobody is super into Biden.

That is in no way the same as the way that Trump has distorted the GOP.

[I Callahan]

No. Biden has made the country noticeably worse in the past two years than Trump did in his four. You're right - it's in no way the same.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the right tries to hate him. But for those of us here to remember Obama, we recognize real hate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was a stupid ad but good marketing -- there is a quiet groundswell of resentment towards the LBG+ community.

Let's face it, chanting "We're Here, We're Queer, We're Coming for your Kids" has really bad optics. Even as a dark joke, it has bad optics...

[Nige]

Making 'coming for lgtbq people of all ages' your actual political platform is worse optics.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...they put out ..." They who? Not DeSantis.

[StellaLink_the dog]

They who?

On twitter : 'the DeSantis War Room — his campaign's "rapid response" account'

[Mr. Bumble]

My understanding is that they (DeSantis campaign) did not create the ad but rather retweeted it.
Not a good move or good look but it is unclear as to who was responsible and whether they still have a job.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"they (DeSantis campaign) did not create the ad but rather retweeted it."

The question was not who created it, the question was who was "they" that "put it out." Obviously, the answer to that question is ‘the DeSantis War Room — his campaign’s “rapid response” account’ put it out on twitter.

Do you not think that a party putting out campaign "stuff" should be responsible for what it puts out via retweet?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stella -- no one -- on either side -- really has control over all their campaign volunteers. Bleep happens

[StellaLink_the dog]

No doubt, shit happens, but what is the proper response from the adults in a campaign organization when something like this does happen? DeSantis and the campaign management are sort of screwed as they surely don't want to piss off the mouth breathers or booger eaters but failing to walk it back in some form or another may have repercussions later. No matter what they do, it's dangerous fun.

[EscherEnigma]

For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. I honestly don't care.

Who do you think that distinction is going to matter to?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That anti-gay ad is likely enough to get Prof. Volokh and a number of the other Conspirators to endorse Ron DeSantis.

[Reallynotbob]

Regarding 303 Collective, I have a question:

Under this ruling, may a newspaper lawfully categorically refuse to run classified ads for all (and only) Black people notwithstanding state anti-discrimination law to the contrary?

It seems to me that Gorsuch is saying the newspaper's refusal has no remedy in US law whatsoever. Is that correct?

[David Nieporent]

Is that correct?

No. That would be discrimination based on the identity of the customer, and not covered by the reasoning of 303 Creative. Under this ruling, newspapers can refuse to run ads based on the content of the ad, not the identity of the customer.

(Also, are there any newspapers that actually still have classifieds, in the days of Craigslist and Facebook and eBay?)

[Reallynotbob]

I'm not sure about that. Here's Gorsuch on the "status vs. content" distinction:

"Nor, in any event, do the First Amendment’s protections belong
only to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy; its protections belong to all, including to speakers
whose motives others may find misinformed or offensive.
See Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life,
Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 468–469 (2007) (opinion of ROBERTS,
C. J.) (observing that “a speaker’s motivation is entirely irrelevant” (internal quotation marks omitted))..."

Then, in n.3 Gorsuch continues,

"...the dissent ignores a fundamental feature of the Free Speech Clause. While it does not protect status-based discrimination unrelated to expression, generally it does protect a speaker’s right to control her own message—even when we may disapprove of the speaker’s motive or the message itself."

It seems to me that the decision elides the identity of the customer problem because the stipulation was that Ms. Smith was discriminating based only on content, and never on status. But that's an impractical assumption for courts to make as they apply the SCOTUS ruling.

So let me modify the hypothetical a touch. Assume the newspaper simply *doesn't* run classifieds from Black people. There's no stated policy. It simply says "too bad, we've simply decided not to run your ad this week." Now what?

[Reallynotbob]

P.S. Good heavens, I wrote the wrong case name. I blame it on being a Monday during a holiday week...

Also, sorry for the crummy formatting. Someday I'll learn how to post properly.

[ducksalad]

So let me modify the hypothetical a touch. Assume the newspaper simply *doesn’t* run classifieds from Black people. There’s no stated policy. It simply says “too bad, we’ve simply decided not to run your ad this week.” Now what?

My understanding is that one would need to prove motive to win.

But I think in the case of stuff like the cake shop, the silence about motives is what the law really sought anyway. It’s unlikely the gay couple’s real complaint was that they were unable to get a wedding cake, or that they had to drive a whole two miles to another bakery. It was the insult and outrage that someone is permitted to be an open bigot. If bakers are forced to make up some other excuse or pretend to be a deaf mute, their mission is accomplished.

[EscherEnigma]

So let me modify the hypothetical a touch. Assume the newspaper simply *doesn’t* run classifieds from Black people. There’s no stated policy. It simply says “too bad, we’ve simply decided not to run your ad this week.” Now what?

Well now 303 is irrelevant.

[David Nieporent]

So let me modify the hypothetical a touch. Assume the newspaper simply *doesn’t* run classifieds from Black people. There’s no stated policy. It simply says “too bad, we’ve simply decided not to run your ad this week.” Now what?

The same thing as if a business simply doesn’t hire black people, with no stated policy to that effect. It's not legal, but depending on the surrounding circumstances, it might or might not be able to get away with it.

[Bored Lawyer]

Right. The newspaper COULD refuse to run an advertisement from Black Lives Matter, or The Thin Blue Line, on the grounds that it does not want to promote those messages.

[EscherEnigma]

Probably not. If I had to guess, I'd say that any lawyer arguing 303's relevance to their case when there isn't a gay person to be found is going to lose.

That the legal reasoning should cut against all protected categories is irrelevant.

[not guilty]

This from the Be Careful What You Wish For department. The New York Times reports that three Boston-area groups have filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education saying that Harvard’s special admissions treatment for students whose parents are alumni, or whose relatives donated money has discriminated against Black, Hispanic and Asian applicants, in favor of less qualified white candidates with alumni and donor connections. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/03/us/harvard-alumni-children-affirmative-action.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20230703&instance_id=96645&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=138289&te=1&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

[Moderation4ever]

An idea whose time has come and credit goes to those that think affirmative action is wrong.

[I Callahan]

Correct.

[John F. Carr]

While I don't know the legal standards for disparate impact of race-neutral policies under education funding standards, I predict that some schools will go to court over this issue.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I really don't know what OCR will do with this one.

[EscherEnigma]

Honestly, after the "bribery" scandal a few years ago, I was surprised that universities didn't just say "we're setting aside a limited number of slots in each class that are up for auction. Pull out your wallets, your kid is going big!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm surprised none of the defendants introduced it...

[not guilty]

U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (S.D. Miss.) has dismissed an indictment charging Jessie Bullock with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Mr. Bullock was convicted of aggravated assault and manslaughter arising out of a bar fight. As a result of those felonies, he served about 15 or 16 years in state prison. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863670/reeves-order.pdf

In a very thorough order, the district court painstakingly reviewed District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022), and concluded that the government had failed to carry its burden of showing that § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional as applied to this defendant.

Justice Robert Jackson, dissenting in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949), got it right. There is indeed danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

[Michael P]

The Court made the point in Heller that "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons" are among those that are presumptively constitutional. Obviously, that doesn't count anything for Obama judges who are determined to misapply the law and the Constitution.

[not guilty]

“The Court made the point in Heller that ‘longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons’ are among those that are presumptively constitutional. Obviously, that doesn’t count anything for Obama judges who are determined to misapply the law and the Constitution.”

Judge Reeves discusses that dictum from Heller extensively. Have you read the order of dismissal? Yes or no?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Once people have served their required time/restitution/etc. and are no longer subjects of the Department of Corrections, their rights should be restored in their entirety.

All of them.

To counter the inevitable cry of 'felons are dangerous and shouldn't have guns' : Update the repeat offender idea. You get one chance to go to prison and come back out. After that, the second time you commit and get convicted of a felony, you don't get to be released, ever.

[EscherEnigma]

I kinda feel like such a model would need to be paired with massive reforms for prisons gearing towards rehabilitation and re-entering society.

Lacking that, you're basically making a system that's gong to guarantee the US's #1 slot for most citizens behind bars for the next five generations.

Which, y'know, if that's your goal, then go-at. But if that's not your goal, you probably have some thinking to do.

[Michael P]

Yeah, I think we either need to do a lot better job of reforming people while they're imprisoned, or modulate the punishments so that there are options between full rights and prison. Doing both would not be evil.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Perhaps that's something that would need to be considered. Various States have implemented "3 strikes" rules, and this idea isn't really too far removed from that, just refined.

I think a bigger issue would be evaluating what crimes should or should not constitute Felonies to begin with. In my State, for example, it's a Felony to cause more than $1000 in damage to someone's property. When that was implemented several decades ago, the purchasing power of $1000 was vastly superior to what it is now.

Despite the fact we're talking about Constitutional rights, I'm also under the impression that Congress can only mandate such restitution of rights post-incarceration for Federal crimes.

My opinion wasn't intended to be a complete policy proposal with all nuances and caveats accounted for. It isn't hard to do the right thing and stay out of prison. People should both be expected to regain their rights upon release, and understand that they don't get multiple attempts to figure out the difference between right and wrong.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Reeves picked a test case with unsympathetic facts to try to make higher courts narrow the Second Amendment.

Current precedent gives the federal government nearly the same power as states to regulate gun possession, despite the fiction that "interstate commerce" is being regulated by the federal government. If not for that, I would set let the whole federal prohibited person statute fall down, put a stake through its heart, and dance on its grave. But that might leave states unable to impose conditions of probation on people who are actually likely to use guns in crimes.

We have some creative writers on the Supreme Court. When guns come to the court the justices will find an excuse to do what they think is the right thing. I think this particular case will not reach them.

[David Nieporent]

Judge Reeves did not pick the case at all. The plaintiff did.

[not guilty]

Actually it was the accused, not a plaintiff.

[RadLegalTakes]

Is this a huge loophole to get around qualified immunity?

https://www.docdroid.net/mqLToaV/arizona-parents-bill-of-rights-act-and-1983docx-pdf

[Michael P]

It's good to have the kind of influence that lets you call up the president of an Ivy League University to get your sub-par grandchild admitted. Unless you're the kind of politician who rants about legacy admissions.

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/joe-biden-wants-to-crack-down-on-privilege-in-education-he-called-upenns-president-to-get-his-granddaughter-in/

[David Nieporent]

Oh, come on; it's only Penn. Subpar people are who the school is for.

[Sarcastr0]

"In 2018, Hunter Biden tapped his father and a number of Biden family connections to help get his daughter into the University of Pennsylvania."

You got him now!

[Nige]

The ivy-covered walls are closing in.

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[Michael P]

Yes, it probably takes a lot of verbal gymnastics to get around fairly clear history. If he was right, he wouldn't need extensive discussion.

[ReaderY]

The man that 303 Creative claimed to have gotten a request to set up a gay wedding website from has surfaced, saying he isn’t gay, is already married, never contacted 303 Creative, and never requested a wedding website, gay or otherwise.

Ordinarily, that wouldn’t matter, because 303 Creative would be entitled to employ the overbreadth doctrine to attact the Colorado discrimination law facially, even though its facial constitutionality would ordinarily be straightforward, because of the specially lenient overbreadth standing rules where First Amendment Freedom of Speech is involved.

But shortly before the 303 Creative decision was handed down, the Supreme Court in US v. Hansen signalled that it is likely to significantly weaken the overbreadth doctrine. If it gets rid of it entirely, or even sharply narrows it, then 303 Creative wouldn’t have standing to sue.

[David Nieporent]

No. The case had nothing whatsoever to do with overbreadth, does not in any way rely on overbreadth, and the man in question was not the basis for the suit in the first place. The suit was filed before he — or someone pretending to be him — put in that request.

[EscherEnigma]

Eh.

The case is built on hypotheticals from the ground-up. That one more piece of the "facts" was made-up would only have changed things insofar as the justices felt it gave them an image problem.

Which is to say, if it had come out earlier the SCOTUS may have opted to punt again rather then finally giving an opinion, but not because it changed their opinion, but just because it makes Smith look less sympathetic when she has to fabricate persecution.

Now though? Eh, they're pot-committed.

[Jmaie]

[David Nieporent]

Hey, there's probably one factual assertion in there, out of the dozens of unverifiable claims, that isn't 100% false.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Crushing people with massive, unshakeable student loan debt was popular?

A racist justice system is popular?

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Frank Drackman]

Plenty of Spics playing 3b/SS/2b/C in MLB, find me one lefty.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So our justice system being racist is because that's what the people want?

Undischargeable student loans are what people want?

[David Nieporent]

So our justice system being racist is because that’s what the people want?

Hell, it's what you want.

Undischargeable student loans are what people want?

People want student loans liberally (no pun intended) available. People do not want the government just handing out money. Making them undischargeable is the only way to get those things.

[SRG]

So our justice system being racist is because that’s what the people want?

Enough people want, provided it's not made explicit. See, e.g., sentencing disparities for crack v powder cocaine.

Undischargeable student loans are what people want?

People want a college education that gives them access to the jobs that allow them to pay off those student loans. (They don't want fake universities which provide worthless degrees or non-existent opportunities.)

[Jerry B.]

“Crushing people with massive, unshakeable student loan debt was popular?”

Sure. Democrats are sure that taxing the “rich” people will pay for it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

>Hell, it’s what you want.

I do?

>People want student loans liberally (no pun intended) available. People do not want the government just handing out money. Making them undischargeable is the only way to get those things.

So the people want them to be undischargeable AND simultaneously want $500B of them forgiven.

That makes a whole lot of sense, if you don’t think about it too much.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

>Enough people want, provided it’s not made explicit. See, e.g., sentencing disparities for crack v powder cocaine.

Was this voted on and implemented by the people? Who created these sentencing disparities and who implements them? The citizens?

>People want a college education that gives them access to the jobs that allow them to pay off those student loans.

The $500B Biden is proposing is targeting the people who got loans for a college education, but didn't gain access to jobs that could pay for the loans?

This educational system that someone pays for but doesn't prepare them for a job? Who created this and who operates this? Why aren't they on the hook for these loans?

[Frank Drackman]

"Well , yeah, duh" it was obvious Hunter would choose a Revolver? Which even people my age (older than Hunter) have mostly Es-chewed in favor of high capacity 9mm(actually mostly Ex-chewed) 40S&W 10mm Semi-Automatic Pistols..
You know, the weapons Senescent Joe thinks should be outlawed so peoples can just fire Shotguns out their windows.
Umm, you do know (0bviously not) that Malcolm the Xth was killed with a Shotgun?, 2-Pack Shakur too, (fur shur) if you really believe he was killed...
I'm actually happy that Hunter won't do any Club Fed Time, would improve his image, and he might live a little longer (I have no prior knowledge of anything improper/ill-legal(at Bushwood) but the odds of Both Hunter/Senescent J being alive on Erection Day 2024, I'll put at 50% (Hunter is still fairly young, and he comes from a long lived family)

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another day at the Volokh Conspiracy, another day of bigotry at the Volokh Conspiracy . . . which appears to be just the way the management likes it.

[Frank Drackman]

Even the "Reverend" Jerry Sandusky can't remember any left handers playing 3b/ss/2b/C...

[StellaLink_the dog]

You think that the paucity of crooked and sinister wrong-footers in the MLB infield is due to bigotry?

[StellaLink_the dog]

Oh, forgot gauche. Should have been gauche, crooked, and sinister wrong-footers.